Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc. - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(mark one)

☒   Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017

or

☐ Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from _______________ to _______________

Commission file number 001-35527

MYnd Analytics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

26522 La Alameda, Suite 290

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

(949) 420-4400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes     ☐                       No      ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes     ☐                       No      ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes     ☒                       No      ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes     ☒                       No      ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” “smaller reporting company”and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.     ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.) Yes     ☐      No      ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on March 31, 2017, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was $14,915,560 (calculated based on the price at which the registrant’s common stock was last sold on that date). 

As of December 29, 2017, the registrant had 4,360,561 shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value, issued and outstanding.

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

2017 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, including the sections entitled “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business,” contain certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that include information relating to future events, future financial performance, strategies, expectations, competitive environment, regulation and availability of resources.  These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding: proposed new products or services; our statements concerning litigation or other matters; statements concerning projections, predictions, expectations, estimates or forecasts for our business, financial and operating results and future economic performance; statements of management’s goals and objectives; trends affecting our financial condition, results of operations or future prospects; our financing plans or growth strategies; and other similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts.  Words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes” and “estimates” and similar expressions, as well as statements in future tense, identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by which, that performance or those results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time they are made and/or management’s good faith belief as of that time with respect to future events and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in or suggested by the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause these differences include, but are not limited to:

Additional risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be different from those expressed or implied in our written or oral forward-looking statements may be found under “Risk Factors” contained in this Annual Report.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. We assume no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting forward-looking information, except to the extent required by applicable securities laws.  If we do update one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.

Special Note Regarding Reverse Stock-split

UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL STOCK-BASED AMOUNTS APPEARING IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT (INCLUDING HISTORICAL AMOUNTS) HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE 1-FOR-200 REVERSE STOCK-SPLIT EFFECTED SEPTEMBER 21, 2016.

ITEM 1. The Business

Introduction

MYnd Analytics, Inc. (the “Company” or “MYnd”) employs a clinically validated scalable technology platform to support personalized care for mental health patients. The Company utilizes its patented machine learning, artificial intelligence, data analytics platform for the delivery of telebehavioral health services and its PEER predictive analytics product offering. On November 13, 2017, the Company acquired Arcadian Telepsychiatry Services LLC (“Arcadian”), which manages the delivery of telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health services through a nationwide network of licensed and credentialed psychiatrists, psychologists and master’s-level therapists. The Company is commercializing its PEER predictive analytics tool to help physicians reduce trial and error treatment in mental health. MYnd’s patented, clinically validated technology platform (“PEER Online”) utilizes complex algorithms to analyze electroencephalograms (“EEGs”) to generate Psychiatric EEG Evaluation Registry (“PEER”) Reports to predict individual responses to a range of medications prescribed for the treatment of behavioral disorders including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and other non-psychotic disorders.

The Market for Telebehavioral Health and Predictive Healthcare

Telebehavioral health services involve the use of video conferencing equipment to conduct real time mental health consultations between a clinician and patient including individuals living in underserved areas or those with limited access to services. Over eighty-nine million Americans live in federally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas. Two-thirds of US primary care physicians report not having adequate access to psychiatric care for their patients. Arcadian facilitates on-demand telebehavioral health services to expedite assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and disposition of patients in a wide variety of settings.

Analysts have identified predictive healthcare as one of the fastest-growing markets in healthcare, particularly, healthcare startups using advanced machine learning algorithms for medical imaging and diagnostics, remote patient monitoring, and risk prediction. The global healthcare analytics market is expected to reach USD $42.8 billion by 2024, according to a report by Grand View Research, Inc. Efforts to reduce the spiraling healthcare costs are facilitating the usage of healthcare analytics. Additionally, the benefits of healthcare analytics include the improvement of patient access to customized care, the furthering of transparent operations to enable better public oversight, and innovation in patient care delivery and services.

The Challenge and the Opportunity

The American Psychiatric Association estimates that between $26 billion and $48 billion could be saved annually through effective integration of medical and behavioral health services. Traditional in-person patient encounters for behavioral health are hampered by relative shortages of behavioral health clinicians, especially in areas of the country where there is the greatest need. Arcadian’s customers are payers, health plans, Employee Assistance Programs (“EAPs”), and provider groups. With the benefit of the MYnd technology platform, Arcadian is positioned to capitalize on the need for behavioral health services, overcoming gaps in care access, while supporting healthcare organizations nationwide.

Psychotropic medications have become the dominant treatment for mild to severe behavioral disorders with greater than 400% growth in the prescription of antidepressant medications over the last two decades. However, recent research has emerged challenging the assumption of efficacy of strategies for prescribing psychotropic medications for the treatment of mild to severe behavioral disorders, finding that these medications often do not work or lose their efficacy over time.

Currently, due to the lack of objective neurophysiological data available to physicians of brain function, physicians regularly make prescribing decisions based on incomplete symptomatic factors. To address this unmet medical need, we offer our PEER Online technology to analyze an individual’s digital Quantitative EEG (“QEEG”), correlating the individual’s QEEG features with medication outcomes in our proprietary database of over 10,000 unique patients to predict the efficacy of psychotropic medications by class and individual medication. The output of this analysis - the PEER Report - has been used as adjunctive information by physicians for over a decade on patients suffering from behavioral disorders including depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (“OCD”), bipolar disorder, PTSD, addiction and eating disorders, including anorexia.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires health plans to ensure parity between medical/surgical benefits and mental health/substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits. Specifically, plans must offer parity in both numerical or “quantitative” financial requirements or treatment limits (e.g., cost sharing and day or visit limits) and “non-quantitative” treatment limits. This legislation drove a substantial increase in reimbursement transparency: plan administrators must now provide detailed criteria for medical necessity determinations relating to MH/SUD, including prior authorization requirements, determinations that a treatment is experimental, methods for reimbursing providers, step-therapy programs, and restrictions based on geographic location or facility type.

Further, key conditions of the 21st Century Cures Act have recently required the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services to strengthen their enforcement of the MHPAEA, requiring audits and enforcement actions for any health insurer or group health plan that has violated MHPAEA at least five times.

Milliman Global Actuaries recently released a report on mental health utilization from 2008-13, the period in which the initial Parity regulations were implemented. For commercial health plans, outpatient visits increased by 19.5% for mental health care compared to only 2% for medical-surgical treatments; professional services increased by 9.1% for mental health versus 3.1% for medical-surgical care. In summary, the practical effect of these regulations is that mental health care visits have increased significantly, and we believe that current procedures with existing reimbursement codes such as EEG will be increasingly reimbursed by payers.

Commercial Strategy

We plan to drive adoption of our technology and secure sustained profitability through the following plan:

Arcadian Telepsychiatry Services LLC

Arcadian Telepsychiatry Services LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary acquired in November 2017, manages the delivery of telebehavioral health services through a multi-state network of licensed and credentialed psychiatrists, psychologists and other behavioral health therapists (“Providers”). Although many companies provide broad telehealth services within the U.S., only a few companies have a primary focus on telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health. Arcadian’s business model is unique, because it has access to a broad network of licensed behavioral health professionals exclusively focused on telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health. These Providers collectively offer a full suite of behavioral health and wellness services, including short-term (urgent), medium-term (rehabilitation) and long-term (management) behavioral care.

Arcadian’s telehealth service delivery model is optimized to deliver behavioral health care anytime and anywhere, offering unprecedented access to behavioral health services. All technology for scheduling and videoconferencing is accessible through a secure portal, creating a seamless experience for the patient, referring physician, and Arcadian provider. The Providers’ services include initial and follow-up psychiatric evaluations and diagnoses, medication prescribing and monitoring, urgent on-call evaluations, forensic and legal evaluations, individual and family counseling (e.g., grief, behavior problems, job loss) and drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation counseling. Arcadian also arranges for services through Employee Assistance Programs (teleEAP) that many employers include as part of their employee benefits packages.

Arcadian contracts for most of its Providers’ services through contracts (each a “Service Agreement”) with the Providers. Neither the Company nor Arcadian has an ownership interest in any Provider, nor any employment relationships with any Provider. All Providers are required to maintain proper state licensing, credentialing and malpractice insurance. In a typical Service Agreement, Arcadian provides certain management and administrative services in support of the Providers’ non-medical functions and the Providers provide telebehavioral health services.

Arcadian and its Providers currently have contracts with 22 insurance companies, human capital management corporations (i.e., EAP benefits), outpatient diagnostic and treatment centers, drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers (outpatient and residential), community behavioral health clinics, treatment and rehabilitation centers, corrections facilities, and post-acute care centers. Arcadian is exploring expansion opportunities by providing services to emergency departments, schools (K-12 and college) and large employers. Arcadian’s contracts span from Pennsylvania to California and North Dakota to Louisiana and Texas.

PEER Report and PEER Online Database

A PEER Report is a personalized report for a patient which is generated after the patient receives an EEG. An EEG is a painless, non-invasive test that records the brain’s electrical activity and provides a basis for comparison against others within the PEER database. MYnd utilizes AI, machine learning and data analytics in order to inform therapeutic regimens, thereby improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. The PEER Reports use data from EEG tests, outcomes and machine learning to identify endophenotypic markers of drug response. This big data approach has allowed MYnd to generate a large clinical registry and database of predictive algorithms from more than 10,000 unique patients with psychiatric or addictive problems and 38,000 clinical outcomes.

The PEER Online database is maintained in two parts:

The QEEG Database includes EEG recordings and neurometric data derived from analysis of these recordings. QEEG is a standard measure that adds cloud-based computerized statistical analysis to traditional EEG studies. We have used two separate QEEG databases from different vendors, which provide statistical and normative information in the generation of a PEER Report.

The PEER Outcomes Database consists of physician-provided assessments of the clinical long-term outcomes of patients and their associated medications. The clinical outcomes of patients are recorded using an industry-standard outcome rating scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (“CGI-I”). The CGI-I allows a clinician to rate how much the patient’s illness has improved or worsened relative to a baseline state. A patient’s illness is compared to change over time and rated as: very much improved, much improved, minimally improved, no change, minimally worse, much worse, or very much worse. The format of the data is standardized and that standard is enforced at the time of capture by a software application. Outcome data is input into the database by the treating physician or their office staff. Each physician has access to their patient data through the software tool that captures the clinical outcome data.

We consider the information contained in the PEER Online database to be a valuable trade secret and are diligent about protecting such information. The PEER Online database is stored on a secure server to which only a limited number of employees have access.

Competitive Advantages of MYnd Technology Platform

MYnd technologies utilizes what is believed to be the largest database of longitudinal patient outcomes, collected from our subscribing physicians and patients over more than a decade.Because our data platform “learns”, it supports physicians in personalizing treatment of patients. PEER offers practical advantages to physicians and patients, including:

Clinical Results and Independent Validation

PEER has abundant literature showing (1) it affects treatment management decisions, (2) the decisions result in ’strong’ effects on established measures of effectiveness (>3- fold more than what has been reported by FDA and Cochrane review groups on effects of drugs without benefit of PEER), (3) improved quality of life scores, (4) safety comparable to existing treatment regimens, (5) generalizability to many settings across many types of patients, and (6) substantial cost offsets.

In the 2017 PEER Report Dossier prepared by John Hornberger of Cedar Associates LLC and a Stanford Health Policy Adjunct Affiliate it is stated that “EEG is a well-standardized clinical tool that has been used for decades. As such, the processes for ordering and performing EGG are established and seamless. PEER represents the next logical enhancement, which is to link the automated, quantitative EEG findings with phenotypes (in this case, with drug response in patients with TRD) using the world’s largest clinical repository. The four randomized trials met the essential criteria of showing that PEER increases response rates; because of the strength of randomization, it leads to strong inference that the effect found in the studies were authentic, not due to a confounding factor. Also, the effect was large enough that relatively modest sample were sufficient to demonstrate the effect was very unlikely (less than 1% risk) of being due to random chance alone. In addition, more than 45 studies have shown the feasibility of a well-validated and useful EEG-clinical repository platform to work across many settings and for many types of patients with depression. Due to the high cost of non-response in depression, and the strong effect found in controlled, prospective trials of PEER, use of PEER at its recommended list price represents a substantial cost-saving opportunity for health plans, especially those facing renewed efforts by employers and government agencies to provide and document readily more affordable, value-based care.”

Marketing and Sales

The Company will pursue aggressively the expansion of its Arcadian telebehavioral health network, by increasing the number of contracted payors and providers and its geographic reach. The Company will continue to focus marketing efforts on the geographies where there might be fewer available therapists as it continues to develop Arcadian’s network. The Company will rely upon its in-house marketing staff to continue to market Arcadian services to insurance companies, EAPs and community behavioral health centers.

The Company will actively pursue cross sales of Arcadian managed care and health system clients. The Company will continue to market paid pilot programs such as the Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield pilot, while it campaigns for coverage determinations from large health plans and health systems.

The Company also plans to bring this platform to primary care providers, currently the main locus of treatment for behavioral disorders and a physician group that deals every day with the limited access to behavioral health specialists and the poor efficacy of current treatments.

MYnd has hired a national vice president of sales and marketing, an experienced diagnostic/pharma executive, who is an accomplished, results-oriented professional with over 20 years of leadership experience in sales and marketing within the pharmaceutical, biotech and oncology/genomic diagnostic space. The Company intends to hire additional sales people for two to four specific areas to concentrate on direct sales. MYnd has implemented and staffed a national call center to respond to patient inquiries, is purchasing lead generated ads on known social media outlets for patient outreach and is referring inquiring patients to physicians in highly targeted geographic areas who regularly utilize and are proficient in PEER.

Acquisition of Arcadian Telepsychiatry Services LLC

On November 13, 2017, the Company entered into an equity purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) with Arcadian and Mr. Robert Plotkin, pursuant to which the Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding membership interests (the “Equity Interests”) of Arcadian from Mr. Plotkin. In consideration for the Equity Interests, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Plotkin, pursuant to which the Company will continue to employ Mr. Plotkin as the CEO of Arcadian for an annual salary of $215,000, and granted him 35,000 options to purchase common stock of the Company. In addition, the Company entered into the Guaranty (as described below).

In connection with the Agreement, Arcadian entered into the Side Agreement and Seed Capital Amendment with Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania (“BFTP”), pursuant to which BFTP waived its rights (a) to an equity conversion contemplated by the existing funding agreements (as they may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “BFTP Loan Documents”) between Arcadian and BFTP, under which BFTP has loaned Arcadian, as of August 31, 2017, the aggregate principal amount of $700,000 and upon which an aggregate of $85,496 of interest had then accrued (collectively, the “Loan Amount”) and (b) to act as an observer to Arcadian’s board. Under the Side Agreement and Seed Capital Amendment, Arcadian acknowledged and reaffirmed all of BFTP’s claims, encumbrances granted by Arcadian to BFTP, and BFTP’s other rights, interests and remedies pursuant to the BFTP Loan Documents and otherwise. The effectiveness of the Side Agreement and Seed Capital Amendment are conditioned upon (i) Arcadian making a one-time payment to BFTP of $175,000 as payment for the redemption and cancellation of two warrants to purchase equity interests in Arcadian and (ii) the Company entering into a guaranty with respect to Arcadian’s obligations (including the Loan Amount) to BFTP under the BFTP Loan Documents, as amended by the Side Agreement and Seed Capital Amendment. Upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, the aforementioned BFTP rights will be waived and the BFTP warrants will be cancelled. The Side Agreement and Seed Capital Amendment further provide that following the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement, the Company will be obligated to complete all financial reporting to BFTP required under the BFTP Loan Documents.

In addition, the Company executed an absolute, unconditional, irrevocable and continuing guaranty and suretyship (the “Guaranty”) in favor of BFTP, pursuant to which it unconditionally guaranteed the prompt payment and performance, when due, of all loans (including the Loan Amount), advances, debts, liabilities, obligations, covenants and duties owing by Arcadian to BFTP under the BFTP Loan Documents. Under the Guaranty, if Arcadian defaults under any obligation under the BFTP Loan Documents, the Company will be required to pay the amount then due to BFTP. The Guaranty contains representations, warranties, covenants, conditions, events of default and indemnities that are customary for agreements of this type.

Competition

While the telehealth market is in an early stage of development, it is competitive, and we expect it to attract increased competition, which could make it difficult for us to succeed. We currently face competition in the telehealth industry for our solution from a range of companies, including specialized software and solution providers that offer similar solutions, often at substantially lower prices, and that are continuing to develop additional products and becoming more sophisticated and effective. Competition from specialized software and solution providers, health plans and other parties will result in continued pricing pressures, which are likely to lead to price declines, which, in turn, could negatively impact our sales, profitability and market share.

Some of our competitors may have greater name recognition, including Teladoc, MDLive and American Well, longer operating histories and significantly greater resources than we do. Further, our current or potential competitors may be acquired by third parties with greater available resources. As a result, our competitors may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards or customer requirements and may have the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition. In addition, current and potential competitors have established, and may in the future establish, cooperative relationships with vendors of complementary products, technologies or services to increase the availability of their solutions in the marketplace. Accordingly, new competitors or alliances may emerge that have greater market share, a larger customer base, more widely adopted proprietary technologies, greater marketing expertise, greater financial resources and larger sales forces than we have, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage. Our competitors could also be better positioned to serve certain segments of the telehealth market, which could create additional price pressure. In light of these factors, even if our solution is more effective than those of our competitors, current or potential clients may accept competitive solutions in lieu of purchasing our solution. If we are unable to successfully compete in the telehealth market, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Although we are not aware of any company that offers a service directly comparable to PEER Online services, several companies having greater financial and other resources than the Company have suggested that they may be pursuing similar strategies, including Assurerx, Genomind, Verily, IBM Corporation and Google. All of these companies have reported developing either a genomic-based test strategy or other AI analysis of the health metrics to aid treatment.

Intellectual Property

Covering The Use Of The PEER Online Database

We have 20 issued patents, of which seven are in the U.S., at least one of which covers the process of using the data presented in our PEER Online service. Our patents will expire between January 2018 and April 2023 and cover QEEG (quantitative electrophysiology). We have been issued patents in the following countries and regions: Canada (three patents), Europe (two patents), Australia (three patents), Mexico (two patents), Japan (two patents) and Israel (one patent). We also have filed multiple additional patent applications for our technology in the U.S., Europe and Canada.

One US patent approval was for a distinctly new patent estate, covering internet transmission of neurometric information. This new allowance under its basic methods patent portfolio, patent number 8,239,013, covers remote or web-based transmission of neurometric data.

During 2009 and 2011, we were awarded additional process patents for use of PEER Online technology in drug discovery, including clinical trial and drug efficacy studies. In addition, we successfully defended our patents by requesting reexamination of a patent issued to Aspect Medical (acquired by Covidien, plc.), resulting in a reduction and narrowing of claims awarded under the previously issued Aspect Medical patents.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

MYnd has filed patent applications in the U.S. and Canada related to the Company’s acquisition of patient responsivity data for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (“TMS”). This would be the Company’s first application for a neurometric predictor of a non-drug therapy. The Company anticipates using this methodology to help physicians better understand which patients may positively respond to TMS for treating depression. The U.S. and Canadian patent applications are entitled “Method for Assessing the Susceptibility of a Human Individual Suffering from a Psychiatric or Neurological Disorder to Neuromodulation Treatment.”

TMS is a non-invasive outpatient procedure that uses magnetic fields to stimulate areas of the brain thought to control mood. TMS is sometimes used as an alternative treatment for patients who have failed one or more antidepressants for the treatment of depression. While treatment periods vary by patient, a typical treatment regimen generally involves 20 to 30 treatments over a four to six week period. TMS responsivity data, which is based on QEEG, helps physicians learn how patients with similar EEG patterns responded to TMS, thereby enabling them to more effectively guide patients most likely to benefit from this treatment and reduce expenditures on patients for whom TMS is not likely to be an effective solution for their depression.

Trademarks

“rEEG”, “PEER Online” (web-based software application), “PEER Online” (web-based services), and “MYnd Analytics” (word mark) are registered trademarks of the Company in the United States. We will continue to expand our brand names and our proprietary trademarks worldwide as our operations expand.

Government Regulation

Arcadian

The healthcare industry, including behavioral healthcare, is extensively regulated at both the state and federal levels. The laws and rules on the practice of behavioral healthcare and telehealth continue to evolve, and the Company will devote significant resources to monitoring these developments. As the applicable laws and rules change, Arcadian must conform its business processes from time to time to be in compliance with these changes.

Provider Licensing, Corporate Practice Restrictions, Certification and Scope of Practice

The practice of health care professions, including the provision of behavioral health services, is subject to various federal, state and local certification and licensing laws, regulations and approvals, relating to, among other things, the adequacy of health care, the practice of medicine and other health professions (including the provision of remote care and cross-coverage practice), equipment, personnel, operating policies and procedures and the prerequisites for prescribing medication. In addition, the provision of health care services through any kind of clinic, facility, storefront or other location open to the public is often subject to state clinic licensure laws akin to those that health facilities like hospitals, surgery centers and urgent care clinics must obtain and maintain. The Company does not operate or promote any physical place to obtain healthcare and therefore does not believe it is subject to any clinic licensure requirements, but the application of some of these laws to the Company and telehealth is unclear and subject to differing interpretation.

Some states have enacted regulations specific to providing services to patients via telehealth. Such regulations include informed consent requirements that some states require providers to obtain from their patients before providing telehealth services. Behavioral health professionals who provide professional services using telehealth modalities must, in most instances, hold a valid license to practice the applicable health profession in the state in which the patient is located. In addition, certain states require a physician providing telepsychiatry to be physically located in the same state as the patient. Arcadian requires each Provider to put in place procedures to ensure that the Provider is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Nevertheless, any failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in civil or criminal penalties against Arcadian.

Corporate Practice; Fee-Splitting

Arcadian contracts with Providers to provide psychiatric, psychological and other behavioral health services. In addition, Arcadian provides a wide range of services to Providers, and the Providers pay Arcadian for those services. These contractual relationships are subject to various state laws, including those in New York, Texas and California, that prohibit fee-splitting or the practice of medicine or another health profession by lay entities or persons and are intended to prevent unlicensed persons from interfering with or influencing a professional’s judgment. In addition, various state laws also generally prohibit the sharing of professional services income with nonprofessional or business interests. Activities other than those directly related to the delivery of behavioral health services may be considered an element of the practice of a health profession in many states. Under the corporate practice restrictions of certain states, decisions and activities such as scheduling, contracting, setting rates and the hiring and management of clinical personnel may implicate the restrictions on the corporate practice of the health profession.

State corporate practice and fee-splitting laws vary from state to state and are not consistent among states. In addition, these requirements are subject to broad powers of interpretation and enforcement by state regulators and may apply to Arcadian if a Provider is licensed there. Moreover, regulatory authorities or other parties, including the Providers, may assert that Arcadian is engaged in the corporate practice of a health profession or that the contractual arrangements with Providers constitute unlawful fee-splitting. An adverse finding on either of these issues could lead to judicial or administrative action against Arcadian or its Providers, civil or criminal penalties, receipt of cease and desist orders from state regulators, loss of Provider licenses, or the need to revise Service Agreements - all in ways that may interfere with Arcadian’s business and have other materially adverse consequences. In any event, such a finding would cause a substantial disruption to Arcadian’s business model.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse Laws

Federal and State Anti-Kickback Statutes

The Company must comply with the federal and state anti-kickback statutes. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute is broadly worded and prohibits the knowing and willful offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form of remuneration in return for, or to induce, (i) the referral of a person covered by Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs, (ii) the furnishing or arranging for the furnishing of items or services reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs or (iii) the purchasing, leasing or ordering or arranging or recommending purchasing, leasing or ordering of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs. Certain federal courts have held that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can be violated if “one purpose” of a payment is to induce referrals. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation, making it easier for the government to prove that a defendant had the requisite state of mind or “scienter” required for a violation. Moreover, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act, as discussed below. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs as well as civil and criminal penalties, including fines of $50,000 per violation and three times the amount of the unlawful remuneration. Imposition of any of these remedies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

State anti-kickback statutes require compliance independent of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some state anti-kickback statutes prohibit the same conduct as the federal anti-kickback statute, but may apply the prohibition broadly to all payor-reimbursed services, not just those that are federally funded. Other state anti-kickback statutes are limited to Medicaid services, while still others apply only to patient referrals and not to actions that involve “arranging or recommending” healthcare items or services.  Very few state anti-kickback statutes have the extensive safe harbors and regulatory guidance of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, making interpretation of the scope of the statutes more uncertain than the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.  Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, most state anti-kickback laws are subject to criminal sanctions. Accordingly, the Company must analyze and ensure that it complies with state anti-kickback statutes whenever it commences operations in a new state. Any violation of state anti-kickback laws, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Physician Self-Referral Laws

There is a federal physician self-referral prohibition, commonly known as the Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from referring Medicare patients to an entity providing “designated health services” if the physician or a member of such physician’s immediate family has a “financial relationship” with the entity, unless an exception applies. We do not believe the Company’s operations, including those of Arcadian, implicate the Stark Law, because neither the Company nor Arcadian nor the Providers acting pursuant to the Services Agreements offer or provide any services that would be considered designated health services under the Stark Law. As with the anti-kickback laws, however, physician self-referral prohibitions exist at the state level and which, like the Stark Law, apply civil penalties to violations of their terms. These state physician self-referral laws are often similar to the Stark Law, but may apply to different services than the Stark Law and may have different exceptions. The Company does not believe it is noncompliant with any state physician self-referral laws, but these laws are often vague, subject to amendment and lacking in court precedent or regulatory guidance. It is possible, therefore, that now or in the future the Company could be found to be out of compliance with one or more state physician self-referral laws. Any such noncompliance could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Federal and State False Claims Statutes

Both federal and state government agencies have continued civil and criminal enforcement efforts as part of numerous ongoing investigations of healthcare companies and their executives and managers. Although there are a number of civil and criminal statutes that can be applied to healthcare providers, a significant number of these investigations involve the federal False Claims Act. These investigations can be initiated not only by the government, but also by a private party asserting direct knowledge of fraud. These “qui tam” whistleblower lawsuits may be initiated against any person or entity alleging such person or entity has knowingly or recklessly presented, or caused to be presented, a false or fraudulent request for payment from the federal government, or has made a false statement or used a false record to get a claim approved. In addition, the improper retention of an overpayment for 60 days or more is also a basis for a False Claim Act action, even if the claim was originally submitted appropriately. Penalties for False Claims Act violations include fines ranging from $5,500 to $11,000 for each false claim, plus up to three times the amount of damages sustained by the federal government. A False Claims Act violation may provide the basis for exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs. In addition, some states have adopted similar fraud, whistleblower and false claims provisions.

Some states have laws similar to the False Claims Act. The scope of these laws and the interpretations of them vary from state to state and are enforced by state courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion. Some state fraud and abuse laws apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, not just those reimbursed by a government-funded healthcare program. A determination of liability under such state fraud and abuse laws could result in fines and penalties and restrictions on the Company’s ability to operate in these jurisdictions and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Other Healthcare Anti-Fraud Laws

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, collectively referred to as HIPAA, established several separate crimes for making false or fraudulent claims to insurance companies and other governmental payors of healthcare services. Under HIPAA, these two additional federal crimes are: “Healthcare Fraud” and “False Statements Relating to Healthcare Matters.” The Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347, prohibits knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private payors, or obtaining by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises any of the money of the healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute may result in fines, imprisonment or exclusion from government-sponsored healthcare programs.  The False Statements Relating to Healthcare Matters statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1035, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact by any trick, scheme or device, making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any materially false writing or document knowing that it contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of this statute may result in fines or imprisonment. This statute could be used by the government to assert criminal liability if a healthcare provider knowingly fails to refund an overpayment. These provisions target some of the same conduct in the submission of claims to private payors as the federal False Claims Act covers in connection with governmental health programs.

In addition, the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law imposes civil administrative sanctions for, among other violations, inappropriate billing of services to federally funded healthcare programs and employing or contracting with individuals or entities who are excluded from participation in federally funded healthcare programs. Moreover, a person who offers or transfers to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary any remuneration, including waivers of co-payments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof) that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services may be liable for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each wrongful act. Moreover, in certain cases, providers who routinely waive copayments and deductibles for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries can also be held liable under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and civil False Claims Act, which can impose additional penalties associated with the wrongful act.

Any violation of these other healthcare fraud laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

State and Federal Health Information Privacy and Security Laws

There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy and security of personally identifiable information, or PII, including health information. In particular, HIPAA establishes privacy and security standards that limit the use and disclosure of protected health information, or PHI, and require the implementation of administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of individually identifiable health information in electronic form. Arcadian’s Providers and some of its clients are all regulated as covered entities under HIPAA. Since the effective date of the HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule on September 23, 2013, HIPAA’s requirements are also directly applicable to the independent contractors, agents and other “business associates” of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit PHI in connection with providing services to covered entities. Arcadian is a business associate under these requirements.

Violations of HIPAA may result in civil and criminal penalties. The civil penalties range from $100 to$50,000 per violation, with a cap of $1.5 million per year for violations of the same standard during the same calendar year. However, a single breach incident can result in violations of multiple standards. HIPAA also contains breach notification rule. Under the breach notification rule, covered entities must notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay in the case of a breach of unsecured PHI, which may compromise the privacy, security or integrity of the PHI. In addition, notification must be provided to the HHS and the local media in cases where a breach affects more than 500 individuals. Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals must be reported to HHS on an annual basis. The regulations also require business associates of covered entities to notify the covered entity of breaches by the business associate.

State attorneys general also have the right to prosecute HIPAA violations committed against residents of their states. Although HIPAA does not create a private right of action that would allow individuals to sue in civil court for a HIPAA violation, its standards have been used as the basis for the duty of care in state civil suits, such as those for negligence or recklessness in misusing personal information. In addition, HIPAA mandates that HHS conduct periodic compliance audits of HIPAA covered entities and their business associates for compliance. It also tasks HHS with establishing a methodology whereby harmed individuals who were the victims of breaches of unsecured PHI may receive a percentage of the Civil Monetary Penalty fine paid by the violator. In light of the HIPAA Omnibus Final Rule, recent enforcement activity, and statements from HHS, we expect increased federal and state HIPAA privacy and security enforcement efforts.

Many states also have laws that protect the privacy and security of sensitive and personal information, including health information. These laws may be similar to or even more protective than HIPAA and other federal privacy laws. Where state laws are more protective than HIPAA, Arcadian must comply with the state laws, in addition to HIPAA. In certain cases, it may be necessary to modify Arcadian’s planned operations and procedures to comply with these more stringent state laws. Not only may some of these state laws impose fines and penalties upon violators, but also some, unlike HIPAA, may afford private rights of action to individuals who believe their personal information has been misused.

In addition to HIPAA, state health information privacy and state health information privacy laws, Arcadian may be subject to other state and federal privacy laws, including laws that prohibit unfair privacy and security practices and deceptive statements about privacy and security and laws that place specific requirements on certain types of activities, such as data security and texting.

In recent years, there have been a number of publicized data breaches involving the improper use and disclosure of PII and PHI. Many states have responded to these incidents by enacting laws requiring holders of personal information to maintain safeguards and to take certain actions in response to a data breach, such as providing prompt notification of the breach to affected individuals and state officials. In addition, under HIPAA and pursuant to the related contracts that we enter into with our business associates, we must report breaches of unsecured PHI to our contractual partners following discovery of the breach. Notification must also be made in certain circumstances to affected individuals, federal authorities and others.

Any violation of HIPAA or state privacy laws, therefore, could result in civil or even criminal liability, subject us to significant monetary fines, require us to restructure our operations and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

MYnd and PEER Online

The PEER Outcome database is registered with the United States Food and Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the State of California as a Class I Exempt Device within the category of Medical Device Data System.

We currently intend to continue marketing as a cloud-based neurometric information service branded as PEER Online (“neurometric services”), under our Class I registration, while we continue to pursue the military trial and consider submission of a Class II device premarket notification. If we continue to market PEER Online and the FDA determines that we should be subject to further FDA regulation, it could seek enforcement action against us based upon a position that our PEER Online product represents a Class II medical device, as a result of which we could be forced to cease our marketing activities and pay fines and penalties. In August 2012, the FDA reviewed the study protocol to use our PEER Interactive Product, which is substantially similar to the PEER Online product, and determined that the Walter Reed PEER Trial was considered a Non-Significant Risk (“NSR”) clinical trial and did not require an Investigational Device Exemption.

In addition to the foregoing, federal and state laws and regulations relating to the sale of our neurometric services are subject to future changes, as are administrative interpretations of regulatory agencies. In the event that federal and state laws and regulations change, we may need to incur additional costs to seek government approvals for the sale of our neurometric services.

Employees

As of September 30, 2017, our operation has eighteen full-time employees. We believe that our relations with our employees are good. None of our employees belong to a union.

Corporate Background

The Company was incorporated in Delaware on March 20, 1987, under the name Age Research, Inc. Prior to January 16, 2007, the Company (then called Strativation, Inc.) existed as a “shell company” with nominal assets whose sole business was to identify, evaluate and investigate various companies to acquire or with which to merge. On January 16, 2007, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with CNS Response, Inc., a California corporation formed on January 11, 2000 (“CNS California”), and CNS Merger Corporation, a California corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiary (“MergerCo”) pursuant to which we agreed to acquire CNS California in a merger transaction wherein MergerCo would merge with and into CNS California, with CNS California being the surviving corporation (the “Merger”). On March 7, 2007, the Merger closed, CNS California became our wholly-owned subsidiary, and on the same date we changed our corporate name from Strativation, Inc. to CNS Response, Inc.

At the meeting of shareholders of CNS Response, Inc. held on October 28, 2015, the shareholders approved a proposal to change the Company’s name to MYnd Analytics, Inc. The Company’s charter was amended on November 2, 2015.

The Company actively operates its businesses through MYnd Analytics, Inc. (California) (formerly called CNS Response, Inc. (California) until November 22, 2017) and, until September 30, 2012, also operated the Neuro-Therapy Clinic, Inc. (“NTC”), which was acquired as a wholly-owned subsidiary in January 2008, when it was the Company’s largest customer. NTC operations were discontinued effective September 30, 2012, as the Company chose to focus its limited cash resources on its clinical trial. Consequently, NTC is accounted for as a discontinued operation.

Our current address is 26522 La Alameda, Suite 290, Mission Viejo, California 92691. Our telephone number is (949) 420-4400 and we maintain a website at www.MYndAnalytics.com. The reference to our web address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained at this site.

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors

INVESTING IN MYND ANALYTICS, INC. INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK.  YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RISK FACTORS AND ALL OTHER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT BEFORE PURCHASING OUR COMMON STOCK. THE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES DESCRIBED BELOW ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES FACING US. ADDITIONAL RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES THAT WE ARE UNAWARE OF, OR THAT WE CURRENTLY DEEM IMMATERIAL, ALSO MAY BECOME IMPORTANT FACTORS THAT AFFECT US. IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RISKS OCCUR, OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL CONDITION OR RESULTS OF OPERATIONS COULD BE MATERIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IN THAT CASE, THE TRADING PRICE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE, AND YOU MAY LOSE SOME OR ALL OF THE MONEY YOU PAID TO PURCHASE OUR COMMON STOCK.

Risks Related to Our Company

We need immediate additional funding to support our operations and capital expenditures, which may not be available to us. This lack of availability could result in the cessation of our business. Our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have not generated significant revenues or become profitable, may never do so and may not generate sufficient working capital to cover costs of operations. Our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Historically, we have been unable to pay other obligations as they become due and have been in arrears on paying certain of our larger creditors. We have a history of insolvency that requires us to immediately secure additional funds to continue our operations. Until we can generate a sufficient amount of revenues to finance our operations and capital expenditures, we are required to finance our cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, borrowings or strategic collaborations. As of September 30, 2017, we had approximately $5.45 million in cash and cash equivalents on hand. As of December 27, 2017, we had approximately $2.73 million in cash and cash equivalents on hand. We will therefore need additional funds to continue our operations and will need substantial additional funds before we can increase demand for our telebehavioral health services and PEER solution offering.

On December 6, 2016, we entered into a common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (“Aspire Capital”), which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10 million of our shares of Common Stock over the approximately 30-month term of the purchase agreement. To date, we have only $145,000 from sales to Aspire Capital. The extent to which we utilize the purchase agreement with Aspire Capital as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our Common Stock, the volume of trading in our Common Stock and the extent to which we are able to secure funds from other sources. The number of shares that we may sell to Aspire Capital under the purchase agreement on any given day and during the term of the agreement is limited. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Private Placement Transactions-The Aspire Capital Equity Line” for additional information. Additionally, we and Aspire Capital may not effect any sales of shares of our Common Stock under the purchase agreement during the continuance of an event of default or on any trading day that the closing sale price of our Common Stock is less than $0.50 per share. Even if we are able to access the full $10 million under the purchase agreement, we will still need additional capital to fully implement our business, operating and development plans.

When we elect to raise additional funds or additional funds are required, we may raise such funds from time to time through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements or other financing alternatives, as well as through sales of Common Stock to Aspire Capital under the purchase agreement. Additional equity or debt financing or corporate collaboration and licensing arrangements may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we will be prevented from pursuing acquisition, licensing, development and commercialization efforts and our ability to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability will be substantially harmed.

We are currently exploring additional sources of capital; however, we do not know whether additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all, especially given the economic conditions that currently prevail. Furthermore, any additional equity funding will likely result in significant dilution to existing stockholders, and, if we incur additional debt financing in the future, a substantial portion of our operating cash flow may be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness, thus limiting funds available for our business activities. If adequate funds are not available, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations and could cause us to be required to cease operations. Our financial statements include an opinion of our auditors that our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We have a history of operating losses and we have never been profitable.

Since our inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. As of September 30, 2017, our accumulated deficit was approximately $75.6 million. On November 13, 2017, we acquired Arcadian Telepsychiatry Services LLC (“Arcadian”), a telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health company. Arcadian also has a history of significant operating losses, which represent a further obstacle to our goal of achieving profitability.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, such as the risk factors described in this section, including our ability to maintain our existing cost structure and to execute our business and strategic plans, including the successful integration of the PEER solution offering with the Arcadian network. Even if we achieve profitability, we may be unable to maintain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Risks Related to Our Business-Telebehavioral Health

Our telebehavioral health business could be adversely affected by new state actions relating to healthcare services and telemedicine providers, which could restrict our ability to provide the full range of our services in certain states.

Our ability to conduct business in each state is dependent upon the state’s treatment of telehealth under each state’s laws, rules and policies governing the practice of medicine and other health care professions, which are subject to changing political, regulatory and other influences. Some state professional boards have established new rules or interpreted existing rules in a manner that limits or restricts our ability to conduct our business as currently conducted in other states, and it is possible that the laws and rules governing the practice of telehealth in one or more states may change in a similar manner in the future. Many states have imposed different, and, in some cases, additional, standards regarding the provision of services via telehealth. These standards often relate to particular modalities of telecommunication that are permitted or prohibited, meaning that a system the Company has established in some states may not satisfy regulatory requirements in others. State laws are also in flux regarding the licensure required to provide services via telehealth. By way of example, certain state Medicaid programs may cover behavioral health treatment provided by psychiatric nurse practitioners, but not clinical social workers. Others provide that certain services can be provided via telehealth by a clinical social worker, but not a licensed mental health counselor. Finally, some states impose strict standards on using telehealth to prescribe certain classes of controlled substances that can be commonly used to treat behavioral health disorders. The unpredictability of this regulatory landscape means that sudden changes in policy regarding standards of care and reimbursement are possible. If this were to happen, and we were unable to adapt our business model accordingly, our operations in such states could be disrupted, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our telebehavioral health business is dependent on our relationships with affiliated professional entities, which we do not own, to provide physician services, and our business would be adversely affected if those relationships were disrupted.

There is a risk that state authorities in some jurisdictions may find that our contractual relationships with our physicians, psychologists and other behavioral health professionals (“Providers”) violate laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine and certain other health professions. These laws generally prohibit the practice of medicine and certain other health professions by lay persons or entities and are intended to prevent unlicensed persons or entities from interfering with or inappropriately influencing the clinician’s professional judgment. The professions subject to corporate practice restrictions and the extent to which each state considers particular actions or contractual relationships to constitute improper influence of professional judgment vary across the states and are subject to change and evolving interpretations by state boards of medicine and other health professions and state attorneys general. As such, we must monitor our compliance with laws in every jurisdiction in which we operate on an ongoing basis and we cannot guarantee that subsequent interpretation of the corporate practice laws will not further circumscribe our business operations. State corporate practice restrictions also often impose penalties on health professionals for aiding a corporate practice violation, which could discourage clinicians from participating in our network of providers. Any difficulty securing clinicians to participate in our network could impair our ability to provide telebehavioral health services and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Corporate practice restrictions exist in some form, whether by statute, regulation, professional board or attorney general guidance, or case law, in at least 42 states, though the broad variation between state application and enforcement of the doctrine makes establishing an exact count difficult. Because of the prevalence of corporate practice restrictions on medicine and psychology in particular, including in the states where we predominantly conduct our business,we contract for provider services through services agreements rather than employ Providers. Because we do not employ the Providers, we expect that these relationships will continue, we cannot guarantee that they will. A material change in our relationship with the Providers, whether resulting from a dispute among the entities, a change in government regulation, or the loss of these affiliations, could impair our ability to provide telebehavioral health services and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Evolving government regulations may require increased costs or adversely affect our results of operations.

In a regulatory climate that is uncertain, our operations may be subject to direct and indirect adoption, expansion or reinterpretation of various laws and regulations. Compliance with these future laws and regulations may require us to change our practices at an undeterminable and possibly significant initial monetary and annual expense. These additional monetary expenditures may increase future overhead, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We have identified what we believe are the areas of government regulation that, if changed, would be costly to us. These include: rules governing the practice of telehealth; including the remote prescribing of controlled substance; licensure standards for behavioral health professionals; laws limiting the corporate practice of medicine and other professions; clinic licensure laws requiring health facilities to obtain a clinic license; fraud and abuse; reimbursement and false claims statutes and regulations governing the submission of health care claims; cybersecurity and privacy laws; laws and rules relating to the distinction between independent contractors and employees; and tax and other laws encouraging employer-sponsored health insurance. There could be laws and regulations applicable to our business that we have not identified or that, if changed, may be costly to us, and we cannot predict all the ways in which implementation of such laws and regulations may affect us.

In the states in which we operate, we believe we are in compliance with all applicable regulations, but, because of the uncertain regulatory environment, certain states may determine that we are in violation of their laws and regulations. If we must remedy such violations, we may be required to modify our services and solutions in such states in a manner that undermines our solution’s attractiveness to patients or providers. We may become subject to fines or other penalties or, if we determine that the requirements to operate in compliance in such states are overly burdensome, we may elect to terminate our operations in such states. In each case, our revenue may decline and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Additionally, the introduction of new services may require us to comply with additional, yet undetermined, laws and regulations. Compliance may require restructuring our relationships with Providers, increasing our security measures and expending additional resources to monitor developments in applicable rules and ensure compliance. The failure to adequately comply with these future laws and regulations may delay or possibly prevent some of our solutions or services from being offered, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The telebehavioral health market is immature and volatile, and if it does not develop, if it develops more slowly than we expect, if it encounters negative publicity or if our solution does not drive patient engagement, the growth of our business will be harmed.

The telebehavioral health market is relatively new and unproven, and it is uncertain whether it will achieve and sustain high levels of demand, consumer acceptance and market adoption. Our success will depend to a substantial extent on the willingness of our patients to use, and to increase the frequency and extent of their utilization of, our solutions, as well as on our ability to demonstrate the value of telebehavioral health to employers, health plans, government agencies and other purchasers of healthcare. Negative publicity concerning our solutions or the telebehavioral health market as a whole could limit market acceptance of our solutions. If our patients and providers do not perceive the benefits of our solutions, or if our solutions do not drive patient engagement, then our market may not develop at all, or it may develop more slowly than we expect. Similarly, individual and healthcare industry concerns or negative publicity regarding patient confidentiality and privacy in the context of telehealth could limit market acceptance of our healthcare services. If any of these events occurs, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

A significant portion of Arcadian’s revenue comes from a limited number of clients, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Historically, Arcadian has relied on a limited number of clients for a substantial portion of its total revenue. We rely on Arcadian’s reputation and recommendations from key clients to promote our solution to potential new clients. In addition, mergers and acquisitions involving our clients could lead to cancellation or non-renewal of our contracts with those clients or by the acquiring or combining companies, thereby reducing the number of our existing and potential clients and patients.

Our business and growth strategy depend on our ability to maintain and expand a network of qualified providers. If we are unable to do so, our future growth would be limited and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

Our success is dependent upon our continued ability to maintain a network of qualified providers. If we are unable to recruit and retain board-certified Providers as needed to render telebehavioral health services in a given state, whether that requires psychiatrists, psychologists or master’s level therapists, it would have a material adverse effect on our business and ability to grow and would adversely affect our results of operations. In any particular market, Providers could demand higher payments or take other actions that could result in higher medical costs, extra income, e.g., only permitting clinicians with higher levels of licensure who demand higher payment rates to provide telebehavioral health services, less attractive service for our clients or difficulty meeting regulatory or accreditation requirements. Our ability to develop and maintain satisfactory relationships with Providers also may be negatively impacted by other factors not associated with us, such as changes in Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement levels and other pressures on healthcare providers and consolidation activity among hospitals, physician groups and the Providers. The failure to maintain or to secure new cost-effective provider contracts may result in a loss of or inability to grow our membership base, higher costs, healthcare provider network disruptions, less attractive service for our clients and/or difficulty in meeting regulatory or accreditation requirements, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our telebehavioral health business may give rise to medical liability claims against us, which could cause us to incur significant expenses and may require us to pay significant damages if not covered by insurance.

Our telebehavioral health business entails the risk of malpractice and professional liability claims against both our Providers and us. Although we and our Providers carry insurance covering malpractice and professional liability claims in amounts that we believe are appropriate in light of the risks attendant to our business, successful malpractice or professional liability claims could result in substantial damage awards that exceed the limits of our and our Providers’ insurance coverage. The Providers each carry professional liability insurance covering $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate for themselves, and we separately carry a general insurance policy covering $1 million per claim and $3 million in the aggregate. In addition, professional liability insurance is expensive and insurance premiums may increase significantly in the future, particularly as we expand our services. As a result, adequate professional liability insurance may not be available to our providers or to us in the future at acceptable costs or at all.

Any claims made against us that are not fully covered by insurance could be costly to defend against, result in substantial damage awards against us and divert the attention of our management and our Providers from our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any claims may adversely affect our business or reputation.

If our new applications and services are not adopted by our partners or patients, or if we fail to innovate and develop new applications and services that are adopted by our patients, our revenue and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our longer-term results of operations and continued growth will depend on our ability successfully to develop and market new applications and services that patients want and are willing to purchase. In addition we will invest significant resources in research and development to enhance our solution and introduce new high-quality applications and services. If patients are not willing to make additional payments for such new applications, or if new patients do not value such new applications, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are unable to predict user preferences or if our industry changes, or if we are unable to modify our solution and services on a timely basis, patients may not patronize us or the Providers. Our results of operations would also suffer if our innovations were not responsive to the needs patients, appropriately timed with market opportunity or effectively brought to market.

If our arrangements with Providers or our partners are found to violate state laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine and other professions or fee-splitting, our business, financial condition and our ability to operate in those states could be adversely impacted.

The laws of many states, including states in which our partners may be located prohibit us from exercising control over the medical judgments or decisions of psychiatrists and certain other providers and from engaging in certain financial arrangements, such as splitting professional fees with behavioral health professionals. These laws and their interpretations vary from state to state and are enforced by state courts and regulatory authorities, each with broad discretion. We enter into agreements with certain of our providers pursuant to which they render professional medical services. In addition, we may enter into contracts with our providers to deliver professional services in exchange for fees. These contracts include management services agreements with our affiliated physician organizations pursuant to which the physician organizations reserve exclusive control and responsibility for all aspects of the practice of medicine and the delivery of medical services. Although we seek to comply with applicable state prohibitions on the corporate practice of medicine and fee splitting, state officials who administer these laws or other third parties may successfully challenge our existing organization and contractual arrangements. If such a claim were successful, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties and could be required to restructure or terminate the applicable contractual arrangements. A determination that these arrangements violate state statutes, or our inability to successfully restructure our relationships with our providers to comply with these statutes, could eliminate clients located in certain states from the market for our services, as well as complicate our efforts to secure qualified clinicians to participate in our network. Either outcome could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our providers are characterized as employees, we would be subject to employment and withholding liabilities.

We structure our relationships with the Providers in a manner that we believe results in an independent contractor relationship, not an employee relationship. An independent contractor is generally distinguished from an employee by his or her degree of autonomy and independence in providing services. A high degree of autonomy and independence is generally indicative of a contractor relationship, while a high degree of control is generally indicative of an employment relationship. Although we believe that the Providers are properly characterized as independent contractors, tax or other regulatory authorities may in the future challenge our characterization of these relationships. If such regulatory authorities or state, federal or foreign courts were to determine that our providers are employees, and not independent contractors, we would be required to withhold income taxes, to withhold and pay Social Security, Medicare and similar taxes and to pay unemployment and other related payroll taxes. We would also be liable for unpaid past taxes and subject to penalties. As a result, any determination that the Providers are our employees could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain state tax authorities may assert that we have a state nexus and seek to impose state and local income taxes which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are currently licensed to operate our telebehavioral health business in two states and file state income tax returns in two states. There is a risk that certain state tax authorities where we do not currently file a state income tax return could assert that we are liable for state and local income taxes based upon income or gross receipts allocable to such states. States are becoming increasingly aggressive in asserting a nexus for state income tax purposes. We could be subject to state and local taxation, including penalties and interest attributable to prior periods, if a state tax authority successfully asserts that our activities give rise to a nexus. Such tax assessments, penalties and interest may adversely affect our results of operations.

Our sales and implementation cycle can be long and unpredictable and requires considerable time and expense, which may cause our results of operations to fluctuate.

The sales cycle for our solutions from initial contact with a potential lead to contract execution and implementation, varies widely by client. Some of our clients undertake a significant and prolonged evaluation process, including to determine whether our services meet their unique healthcare needs, which frequently involves evaluation of not only our solutions but also an evaluation of those of our competitors, which has in the past resulted in extended sales cycles. Our sales efforts involve educating our clients about the use, technical capabilities and potential benefits of our solution. Moreover, our large enterprise clients often begin to deploy our solutions on a limited basis, but nevertheless demand extensive configuration, integration services and pricing concessions, which increase our upfront investment in the sales effort with no guarantee that these clients will deploy our solutions widely enough across their organization to justify our substantial upfront investment. It is possible that in the future we may experience even longer sales cycles, more complex client needs, higher upfront sales costs and less predictability in completing some of our sales as we continue to expand our direct sales force, expand into new territories and market additional applications and services. If our sales cycle lengthens or our substantial upfront sales and implementation investments do not result in sufficient sales to justify our investments, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The telehealth market is competitive, and if we are not able to compete effectively, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be harmed.

While the telehealth market is in an early stage of development, it is competitive and we expect it to attract increased competition, which could make it difficult for us to succeed. We currently face competition in the telehealth industry for our solutions from a range of companies, including specialized software and solution providers that offer similar solutions, often at substantially lower prices, and that are continuing to develop additional solutions and becoming more sophisticated and effective. Competition from specialized software and solution providers, health plans and other parties will result in continued pricing pressures, which is likely to lead to price declines in certain solution segments, which could negatively impact our sales, profitability and market share.

Some of our competitors may have greater name recognition, longer operating histories and significantly greater resources than we do. Further, our current or potential competitors may be acquired by third parties with greater available resources. As a result, our competitors may be able to respond more quickly and effectively than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards or customer requirements and may have the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition. In addition, current and potential competitors have established, and may in the future establish, cooperative relationships with vendors of complementary solutions, technologies or services to increase the availability of their solutions in the marketplace. Accordingly, new competitors or alliances may emerge that have greater market share, a larger customer base, more widely adopted proprietary technologies, greater marketing expertise, greater financial resources and larger sales forces than we have, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage. Our competitors could also be better positioned to serve certain segments of the telehealth market, which could create additional price pressure. In light of these factors, even if our solutions are more effective than those of our competitors, current or potential clients may accept competitive solutions in lieu of purchasing our solutions. If we are unable to successfully compete in the telehealth market, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Taxing authorities may successfully assert that we should have collected or in the future should collect sales and use or similar taxes which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We do not collect sales and use and similar taxes in any states based on our belief that our services are not subject to such taxes in any state. Sales and use and similar tax laws and rates vary greatly from state to state. Certain states in which we do not collect such taxes may assert that such taxes are applicable, which could result in tax assessments, penalties and interest with respect to past services, and we may be required to collect such taxes for services in the future. Such tax assessments, penalties and interest or future requirements may adversely affect our results of operations.

Economic uncertainties or downturns in the general economy or the industries in which our clients operate could disproportionately affect the demand for our telebehavioral health solution and negatively impact our results of operations.

General worldwide economic conditions have experienced significant downturns during the last ten years, and market volatility and uncertainty remain widespread, making it potentially very difficult for our clients and us to accurately forecast and plan future business activities. During challenging economic times, our clients may have difficulty gaining timely access to sufficient credit or obtaining credit on reasonable terms, which could impair their ability to make timely payments to us and adversely affect our revenue. If that were to occur, our financial results could be harmed. Further, challenging economic conditions may impair the ability of our clients to pay for the applications and services they already have purchased from us and, as a result, our write-offs of accounts receivable could increase. We cannot predict the timing, strength or duration of any economic slowdown or recovery. If the condition of the general economy or markets in which we operate worsens, our business could be harmed.

Risks Related to Our Business-Predictive Medicine (PEER)

If our PEER Reports do not gain widespread market acceptance, we may not be able to achieve the level of sales required for growth, and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed.

We have developed a methodology that aids psychiatrists and other physicians in selecting appropriate and effective medications for patients with certain behavioral or addictive disorders based on physiological traits of the patient’s brain and information contained in a proprietary database that has been developed over approximately the last twenty-five years. We began selling reports, referred to as rEEG Reports, based on our methodology in 2000; these reports have since been rebranded as PEER Reports. To date, we have not received widespread market acceptance of the usefulness of our PEER Reports in helping psychiatrists and other physicians inform their treatment strategies for patients suffering from behavioral and/or addictive disorders and we currently rely on a limited number of employees to market and promote our PEER Reports. To grow our business, we will need to develop and introduce new sales and marketing programs and clinical education programs to promote the use of our PEER Reports by psychiatrists and other physicians and hire additional employees for this purpose which we are in the process of doing. If we do not implement these new sales and marketing and education programs in a timely and successful manner, we may not be able to achieve the level of market awareness and sales required to expand our business, which could also negatively impact our stock price, financial condition and results of operations.

Our PEER Reports may not be as effective as we believe them to be, which could limit or prevent us from growing our revenues. If the results of our clinical trials are not significant, we may not be able to continue to fund our development efforts.

Our belief in the efficacy of our PEER Online technology is based on a finite number of successful studies. Such results may not be statistically significant in future studies and may not be indicative of the long-term future efficacy of the information we provide. Controlled scientific studies, including those that have already been announced and that are planned for the future, may yield results that are unfavorable or demonstrate that our services, including our PEER Reports, are not clinically useful. While we have not experienced such problems to date, if the initially indicated results cannot be successfully replicated or maintained over time, utilization of services based on our PEER Online technology, including the delivery of our PEER Reports, may not increase as we anticipate, which would harm our operating results and stock price. In addition, if we fail to upgrade our PEER Online database to account for new medications that are now available on the market, psychiatrists and other physicians may be less inclined to utilize our services if they believe that our reports only provide information about older treatment options, which would further harm our operating results and stock price. In August, 2016, we commenced enrolling patients into a new clinical trial. The trials are designed as a double-blind trial for military patients with a primary diagnosis of depression and other psychological comorbidity.  We do not know whether the ultimate results of the trial will be successful.  There are many factors beyond our control that could affect the success of the trials, including difficulty in registering more subjects, failures of investigators to follow the proper protocol, and external factors affecting patient health, among others.  If we fail to receive significant positive results for these trials, doctors may not be willing to use our services and our ability to generate revenue and to continue the PEER Online program, if at all, could be limited.

The FDA believes that rEEG and, potentially, our PEER Online service, constitute a medical device, which is subject to regulation by the FDA. As we continue to market our PEER Online service, there is risk that the FDA will commence an enforcement action against us. The FDA has informed us that our marketing of our rEEG services without prior approval or re-classification by the FDA constitutes a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Since April of 2008, we have been engaged in discussions with the FDA regarding its position that our rEEG service and its successor, now called PEER Online, constitute a medical device which is subject to regulation by the FDA. On April 10, 2008, we received correspondence from the FDA in which the FDA indicated it believed, based in part on the combination of certain marketing statements it read on our website, together with the delivery of our rEEG Reports, that we were selling a software product to aid in diagnosis, which constituted a “medical device” requiring pre-market approval or 510(k) clearance by the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), which we contested.

Based upon written guidance from the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (“Center”), we chose to submit an application to obtain 510(k) clearance for our rEEG service, without waiving our right to continue to take the position that our services do not constitute a medical device. We sought review of our rEEG service based upon its equivalence to predicate devices that already have FDA clearance which appeared to represent a sound mechanism to reduce regulatory risks.

The Company successfully registered its PEER Outcome database as a Class I Exempt Device within the category of Medical Device Data System, Section 860.6310. The Company continued its engagement with Center staff over the potential for a regulatory pathway for PEER Online as a Class II medical device, based on the Center’s recommendation that military use of PEER Online move forward under an Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) to provide additional data to support a successful 510(k) filing.

The Company is proceeding with two clinical trials based substantially on the Walter Reed PEER Trial protocol in an effort to replicate and expand the result achieved during the Walter Reed PEER Trial. One clinical trial with the Canadian Armed Forces commenced enrollment of patients in August, 2016. A second clinical trial with a large provider group has been through the training phase of the trial and is expected to commence enrolling patients in the next few months. At this time we cannot predict the results or the success of any of these trials. We can offer no assurances that the FDA will not insist on pre-market approval in the future, or that the data, which will be included in our future submissions to the FDA, do not raise any important new issues that could materially affect the safety or effectiveness of our PEER service. The inability to enroll sufficient subjects or the receipt of inconclusive results from our new clinical trials would have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand our operations. We currently intend to continue marketing as a non-device cloud-based neurometric service branded as PEER Reports, under our Class I registration, while we pursue the additional clinical trials and consider submission of a Class II device premarket application in the future. If we continue to market our PEER Reports and the FDA determines that we should be subject to further FDA regulation as a Class II medical device, it could seek enforcement action against us based upon its position that our PEER Reports constitute a medical device as a result of which we could be forced to cease our marketing activities and pay fines and penalties, which would have a material adverse impact on us.

In addition to the foregoing, federal and state laws and regulations relating to the sale of our neurometric services are subject to future changes, as are administrative interpretations of regulatory agencies. If federal and state laws and regulations change, we may need to incur additional costs to seek government approvals for the sale of our neurometric services.

If government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate payment rates for treatments that are guided by our PEER Reports, our revenue and prospects for profitability will be harmed.

Our future revenue growth will depend in part upon the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors for psychiatrists and other physicians who use our PEER Reports to guide the treatment of their patients. Such third-party payors include government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by demanding price discounts or rebates and limiting both coverage on which procedures they will pay for and the amounts that they will pay for new procedures. As a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for treatments that are guided by our PEER Reports, which will discourage psychiatrists and other physicians from utilizing the information services we provide. We may need to conduct studies in addition to those we have already announced to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treatments that are guided by our solutions and services to such payors’ satisfaction. Such studies might require us to commit a significant amount of management time and financial and other resources. Adequate third-party reimbursement might not be available to enable us to realize an appropriate return on investment in research and product development and the lack of such reimbursement could have a material adverse effect on our operations and could adversely affect our revenues and earnings.

Although state Medicaid programs and commercial insurers are increasingly paying for healthcare services provided via telehealth, including telebehavioral health, reimbursement by the Medicare program remains a relative unknown. Medicare reimbursement is an important consideration for any provider of healthcare services in the United States, as Medicare accounted for twenty percent (20%) of all health expenditures in the United States in 2016, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expect that figure to rise annually through at least 2025. In the near future, Medicare could adopt telehealth reimbursement standards that do not allow for reimbursement of telebehavioral health services generally, or do not allow for reimbursement of our services for any number of reasons. If this were to occur, and we were unable to adapt our operations accordingly, there could be a material adverse effect on our ability to provide services to a significant portion of the American population, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Billing complexities associated with obtaining payment or reimbursement for our tests may negatively affect our revenue, cash flow and profitability.

The Company derives revenue from the PEER Report process, which includes the EEG, the QEEG, and the PEER Report, for which we bill on a fee-for-service basis, including reimbursements by third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental payor programs, hospitals, private insurance plans and managed care organizations and direct payments from individual patients. Billing for PEER Report testing services is generally highly complex. We conduct our own internal billing and work closely with third-party providers to ensure accuracy of billing, timely collections, and resolution of appeals and billing discrepancies.

Depending on our billing arrangement with each third-party payor and applicable law, we are often obligated to bill in the specific manner prescribed by the various payors, each of which may have different requirements. Among the potential factors complicating our billing of third-party payors are:

We also face risks in our collection efforts, including potential write-offs of doubtful accounts and long collection cycles for accounts receivable.

Additionally, from time to time, payors change processes that may affect timely payment. These changes may result in uneven cash flow or impact the timing of revenue recognized with these payors. With respect to payments received from governmental programs, factors such as a prolonged government shutdown could cause significant regulatory delays or could result in attempts to reduce payments made to us by government healthcare programs. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for PEER Report testing services, could negatively affect our revenue, cash flow and profitability. In addition, increases in write-offs of doubtful accounts, delays in receiving payments or potential retroactive adjustments and penalties resulting from audits by payors could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in laws, regulations, payor policies or contracting arrangements with payors may adversely affect coverage or reimbursement for PEER Report services, which may decrease our revenue and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Governmental payors, as well as private insurers, and other private payors have implemented and will continue to implement measures to control the cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services, including laboratory services. Congress has from time to time considered and implemented changes to laws and regulations governing healthcare service providers, including specialized diagnostic service providers. These changes have adversely affected and may in the future adversely affect coverage for laboratory services, including the PEER Report and PGx testing services we provide. We also believe that healthcare professionals may not use the PEER Report if third-party payors do not provide adequate coverage and reimbursement for them.

Reimbursement to healthcare providers, such as specialized analytic service providers, are subject to continuing change in policies by governmental payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurers, including managed care organizations, and other private payors, such as hospitals and private medical groups.

As a Medicare-participating independent diagnostic testing facility based in California, we bill Noridian Healthcare Solutions, or Noridian, the Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, for California, and are subject to Noridian’s local coverage and reimbursement policies. Reductions in coverage could decrease our average Medicare reimbursement rate per sample.

The provision of health care services through any kind of clinic, facility, storefront or other location open to the public is often subject to state clinic licensure laws akin to those that health facilities like hospitals, surgery centers and urgent care clinics must obtain and maintain. The Company does not operate or promote any physical place to obtain healthcare and therefore does not believe it is subject to any clinic licensure requirements, but the application of some of these laws to the Company and telehealth is unclear and subject to differing interpretation given the Company’s status for Medicare purposes as an independent diagnostic testing facility.

In addition, reimbursement from governmental payors is subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive rate adjustments and administrative rulings, and other policy changes, all of which could materially decrease the range of services for which we are reimbursed or the reimbursement rates paid for PEER Report services.

Finally, some private insurers and other third-party payors link their rates to Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and a reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates for PEER Report services could result in a corresponding reduction in the reimbursements we receive from such third-party payors. Any reductions in reimbursement levels for the PEER Report would decrease our revenue and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Operating as a non-contracting provider with certain payors may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and contracting with those payors may be disadvantageous to us.

We are currently considered to be an out-of-network or “non-contracting provider” by a number of third-party payors because we have not entered into a specific contract to provide PEER Report services to their insured patients at specified rates of reimbursement. We are generally subject to reimbursement as a non-contracting provider. As a non-contracting provider, many payors pay us a smaller percentage of our charges that they recognize to be reasonable, and expect us to collect greater coinsurance or copayments from patients. Rather than collecting these higher coinsurance and copayment amounts from these patients, when permitted by law to do so, we may, if permissible under applicable law, instead choose to charge them only the lower coinsurance and copayments amounts that would have applied to them if we had been contracted with their payor, which results in decreased revenues. In instances where we may be prohibited by law from treating these patients as if we were in-network, thus requiring these patients to pay higher coinsurance or copayments to us, our customers may decide to reduce or avoid prescribing PEER Report services for such patients, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Should any of the third-party payors with whom we are not contracted insist that we enter into a contract for the PEER Report services we provide, the resulting contract may contain pricing and other terms that are materially less favorable to us than the terms under which we currently operate. If revenue from a particular payor grows, there is heightened risk that such a third-party payor will insist that we enter into contractual arrangements that contain such terms. If we refuse to enter into a contract with such a third-party payor, they may refuse to cover and reimburse for PEER Report services, which may lead to a decrease in report volume and a corresponding decrease in our revenues. If we contract with such a third-party payor, although our report volume may increase as a result of the contract, our revenue per report under the contractual agreement and gross margin may decrease. The overall net result of contracting with third-party payors may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Regulations relating to the sale of our PEER Reports are constantly changing and in the future, our business may be subject to additional regulations that will increase our compliance costs.

Federal, state and foreign laws and regulations relating to the sale of our PEER Reports are subject to future changes, as are administrative interpretations of regulatory agencies. If we fail to comply with applicable federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including injunctions that would prevent us from conducting our business, withdrawal of clearances or approvals and civil and criminal penalties. If federal, state, and foreign laws and regulations change, we may need to incur additional costs to seek government approvals, in addition to the clearance from the FDA if we so chose, to sell or market our PEER Online service. There is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain such approvals in a timely manner or at all, and as a result, our business would be significantly harmed.

Our business practices may be found to constitute illegal fee-splitting or violate corporate practice restrictions, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business.

Many states, including California, in which our principal executive offices are located, and where we and our Providers operate, have laws that prohibit a general corporation as opposed to a professional corporation, from practicing medicine and certain other healthcare professions such as psychology, exercising control over medical judgments or decisions of behavioral health professionals, or engaging in certain arrangements, such as employment or fee-splitting, with professionals. We have addressed strong corporate practice state prohibitions through management services agreements with Providers under which the Providers are paid directly by payors for professional services and the Providers pay us under the management services agreements for our non-clinical services. Although we calibrate these management fees to comply with fee-splitting statutes, in many states those fee-splitting statutes are ambiguous and therefore could be used to challenge our arrangements with the Providers. In addition, courts, regulatory authorities or other parties, including behavioral health professionals, may assert that we are engaged in the unlawful corporate practice of medicine by providing administrative and ancillary services in connection with our PEER Reports. These parties may also assert that selling our PEER Reports constitutes improper fee-splitting. If asserted, such claims could subject us to civil and criminal penalties and substantial legal costs, could result in our contracts being found legally invalid and unenforceable, in whole or in part, or could result in us being required to restructure our contractual arrangements, all with potentially adverse consequences to our business and our stockholders.

If we do not maintain and expand our relationships in the psychiatric and physician community, our growth will be limited and our business could be harmed. If psychiatrists and other physicians do not recommend and endorse our solutions and services, we may be unable to increase our sales, and in such instances, our profitability would be harmed.

Our relationships with psychiatrists and other physicians are critical to the growth of our Neurometric Services business. We believe that these relationships are based on the quality and ease of use of our PEER Reports, our commitment to the behavioral health market, our marketing efforts and our presence at tradeshows. Any actual or perceived diminution in our reputation or the quality of our PEER Reports, or our failure or inability to maintain our commitment to the behavioral health market and our other marketing and solution promotion efforts could damage our current relationships, or prevent us from forming new relationships, with psychiatrists and other physicians and cause our growth to be limited and our business to be harmed.

To sell our PEER Reports, psychiatric professionals must recommend and endorse them. We may not obtain the necessary recommendations or endorsements from this community. Acceptance of our PEER Reports depends on educating psychiatrists and other physicians as to the benefits, clinical efficacy, ease of use, revenue opportunity and cost-effectiveness of our PEER Reports and on training the medical community to properly understand and utilize our PEER Reports. If we are not successful in obtaining the recommendations or endorsements of psychiatrists and other physicians for our PEER Reports, we may be unable to increase our sales and profitability.

Negative publicity or unfavorable media coverage of our PEER technology could damage our reputation and harm our operations.

In the event that the marketplace perceives our PEER Reports as not offering the benefits which we believe they offer, we may receive significant negative publicity. This publicity may result in litigation and increased regulation and governmental review. If we were to receive such negative publicity or unfavorable media attention, whether warranted or unwarranted, our ability to market our PEER Reports would be adversely affected, we may be required to change our solutions and services and become subject to increased regulatory burdens and we may be required to pay large judgments or fines and incur significant legal expenses. Any combination of these factors could further increase our cost of doing business and adversely affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

If we do not successfully generate additional solutions and services from our patented methodology and proprietary database, or if such solutions and services are developed but not successfully commercialized, then we could lose revenue opportunities.

The current focus of our predictive medicine business is the sale of PEER Reports to psychiatrists and other physicians based on our PEER Online methodology and proprietary database. If we do not successfully generate additional solutions and services from our patented methodology and proprietary database, or if such solutions and services are developed but not successfully commercialized, then we could lose revenue opportunities.

Our industry is highly competitive and our PEER solutions may not be able to compete successfully, which could result in price reductions and decreased demand for our solutions.

The healthcare industry, in general, and behavioral health treatment services in particular, are highly competitive. If we are unable to convince physicians, psychiatrists and patients of the efficacy of our solutions and services, individuals seeking treatment for behavioral health disorders may seek alternative treatment methods, including non-medication-based therapies, which could negatively impact our sales of PEER Reports and our profitability.

If we conduct clinical trials, we cannot predict whether we will encounter problems that will cause us or regulatory authorities to delay or suspend our clinical trials or delay the analysis of data from our completed or ongoing clinical trials. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that we will be successful in reaching the endpoints in these trials, or if we are, that the FDA or other regulatory agencies will accept the results.

Any of the following factors, among others, could delay the completion of clinical trials, or result in a failure of these trials to support our business, which would have an adverse effect on our business:

If we determine that the costs associated with attaining regulatory approval of a solution exceed the potential financial benefits or if the projected development time line is inconsistent with our determination of when we need to get the product to market, we may choose to stop a clinical trial and/or development of a solution.

We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property, which is the core of our predictive medicine (PEER) business.

We consider the protection of our intellectual property to be important to our business prospects. We currently have twenty issued patents in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Israel, Japan and Mexico and we have also filed multiple additional patent applications in the United States and in multiple foreign jurisdictions.

In the future, if we fail to file patent applications in a timely manner, fail to pay applicable maintenance fees on issued patents, or if we elect not to file a patent application because of the costs associated with patent prosecution, we may lose patent protection that we may have otherwise obtained. The loss of any proprietary rights which are obtainable under patent laws may result in the loss of a competitive advantage over present or potential competitors, with a resulting decrease in revenues and profitability for us.

With respect to the applications we have filed, there is no guarantee that the applications will result in issued patents, and further, any patents that issue may be too narrow in scope to adequately protect our intellectual property and provide us with a competitive advantage. Competitors and others may design around aspects of our technology, or alternatively, may independently develop similar or more advanced technologies that fall outside the scope of our claimed subject matter, but that can be used in the treatment of behavioral health disorders.

In addition, even if we are issued additional patents covering our solutions, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty, whether or not we will be able to enforce our proprietary rights and whether our patents will provide us with adequate protection against competitors. We may be forced to engage in costly and time-consuming litigation or reexamination proceedings to protect our intellectual property rights and our opponents in such proceedings may have and be willing to expend, substantially greater resources than we are able to expend. In addition, the results of such proceedings may result in our patents being invalidated or reduced in scope. These developments could cause a decrease in our operating income and reduce our available cash flow, which could harm our business and cause our stock price to decline.

We also utilize processes and technology that constitute trade secrets, such as our PEER Online database, and we must implement appropriate levels of security for those trade secrets to secure the protection of applicable laws, which we may not do effectively. In addition, the laws of many foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights as fully as the laws of the United States.

While we have not had any significant issues to date, the loss of any of our trade secrets or proprietary rights, which may be protected under the foregoing intellectual property safeguards may result in the loss of our competitive advantage over present and potential competitors.

Certain of our patents will expire in the near future, and we may have difficulties protecting our proprietary rights and technology and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

We currently have 20 issued patents, of which seven are in the U.S., one of which covers the process involved in our PEER Online service. Our patents will expire between January 2018 and April 2023 and cover QEEG (quantitative electrophysiology); at which point we can no longer enforce our rights under these patents against third parties to prevent them from developing processes and commercializing solutions similar or identical to ours. Because our efforts to achieve broader market acceptance of our PEER Online service may take a substantial period of time, our patents may expire or provide only a short period of protection, if any, following such broader market acceptance. This could expose us to substantially more competition and have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and solutions. Our asset is our PEER Online Database and we will continue to encrypt and protect it.

We depend heavily upon secure access to, and secure transfer of, data via the internet in exchanging data with customers. Any security breaches could result in unauthorized access to sensitive patient data, our intellectual property and other confidential business information. We use third-party data centers and any damage to, or failure of, our central analytical database could adversely affect our ability to provide our services. For any of the foregoing or related reasons, customers may curtail or stop using our services and we may incur significant legal and financial exposure and liabilities.

We depend heavily on secure access to, and secure transfer of data via the internet in the generation of our PEER Reports and other data exchange with our customers. We rely on services provided by third parties to store, transmit and process data in our central neurometric database. Security breaches could expose us to a risk of losing data and result in litigation and possible liability. Security measures taken by us or by such third party service providers may be breached as a result of third party action, including intentional misconduct by computer hackers, employee error, malfeasance, fraud or otherwise, during transfer or processing of data or at any time and result in someone obtaining unauthorized access to sensitive patient information, our intellectual property, other confidential business information, or our information technology systems. Because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, or to sabotage systems, change frequently and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, we or our third-party service providers may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventative measures. Any security breach could result in a loss of confidence in the security of our service, damage to our reputation, disruption to our business, could lead to legal liability and severely curtail future revenue.

In addition, any damage to, or failure of, our central neurometric database and the server on which it resides could result in interruptions in our ability to provide PEER Reports. Interruptions in our service may reduce our revenue, cause PEER Network providers to terminate their relationship with us and adversely affect our ability to attract new physicians to the PEER Network. Our business will also be harmed if our customers and potential customers believe our service is unreliable.

Because our service is complex and cloud-based we rely on third-party data centers to store the data in our central neurometric database, our data and processes may be corrupted at some future time resulting in erroneous, defective or ineffective reports, which could result in unanticipated downtime in our service for PEER Network providers, resulting in harm to our reputation and our business. We do not control the operation of these facilities. While we take precautions (data redundancy, back-up and disaster recovery plans) to prevent service interruptions, our data centers are vulnerable to damage or interruption from human error, intentional bad acts, pandemics, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires, war, terrorist attacks, power losses, hardware failures, systems failures, communications failures and similar events. The occurrence of a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, vandalism or other misconduct, resulting in a decision to close the facilities without adequate notice or other unanticipated problems could result in lengthy interruptions in the availability of our central neurometric database. Since many physicians rely on our service to assist in treating their patients, any errors, defects, disruptions in service or other performance problems with our service could hurt our reputation and hurt the reputation of the physicians in our PEER Network. If that occurs, physicians could elect to terminate their relationship with us, or delay or withhold payment to us. We could lose future revenues or customers may make warranty or other claims against us, which could result in an increase in our provision for doubtful accounts, an increase in collection cycles for accounts receivable or the expense and risk of litigation and a reduction in revenue.

Security breaches, damages or failures of the sort described above would adversely affect our ability to market our PEER Reports. In addition, we may be required to change our products and services and become subject to increased regulatory burdens and we may be required to pay large judgments or fines and incur significant legal expenses.

In the future we could be subject to personal injury claims due to adverse events from treatment facilitated through the use of our PEER reports, which could result in substantial liabilities that may exceed our insurance coverage.

All significant medical treatments and procedures, including treatment that is facilitated through the use of our PEER Reports, can involve the risk of serious adverse events up to and including death. Our PEER Reports generally require psychiatrists and other physicians to titrate patients off of psychotropic medications before receiving an EEG. The titration process and the removal of medications from patients risk potentially serious health consequences. Although we have no clinical involvement, it is possible that we could be named as defendants in any malpractice claim involving a patient harmed during the titration process or during a period in which the patient ceases the use of medications. Although we have not been the subject of any personal injury claims for patients treated by providers using our PEER Reports, our business entails an inherent risk of claims for personal injuries, which are subject to the attendant risk of substantial damage awards. We cannot control whether individual physicians and psychiatrists will properly select patients, apply the appropriate standard of care, or conform to our procedures in determining how to treat their patients. A significant source of potential liability is negligence or alleged negligence by physicians treating patients with the aid of the PEER Reports that we provide. There can be no assurance that a future claim or claims will not be successful or, including the cost of legal defense, will not exceed the limits of available insurance coverage.

We currently have general liability and medical professional liability insurance coverage for up to $3 million per year for personal injury claims. We may not be able to maintain adequate liability insurance, in accordance with standard industry practice, with appropriate coverage based on the nature and risks of our business, at acceptable costs and on favorable terms. Insurance carriers are often reluctant to provide liability insurance for new healthcare services companies and products due to the limited claims history for such companies and products. In addition, based on current insurance markets, we expect that liability insurance will be more difficult to obtain and that premiums will increase over time and as the volume of patients treated by physicians that are guided by our PEER Reports increases. In the event of litigation, regardless of its merit or eventual outcome, or an award against us during a time when we have no available insurance or insufficient insurance, we may sustain significant losses of our operating capital which may substantially reduce stockholder equity in the company.

Risks Related to Our Business-General

We conduct business in a heavily regulated industry and if we fail to comply with these laws and government regulations, we could incur penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations or experience adverse publicity, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The healthcare industry is heavily regulated and closely scrutinized by federal, state and local governments. Comprehensive statutes and regulations govern the manner in which Providers provide and bill for services and collect reimbursement from governmental programs and private payors, our contractual relationships, our marketing activities and other aspects of our operations. Of particular importance are the following laws and rules:

Finally, in the operations of our Company and our Providers, we must comply with additional restrictions, including the following:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly. Failure to comply with these laws and other laws can result in civil and criminal penalties such as fines, damages, overpayment recoupment loss of enrollment status and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The risk of our being found in violation of these laws and regulations is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are sometimes open to a variety of interpretations. Our failure to accurately anticipate the application of these laws and regulations to our business or any other failure to comply with regulatory requirements could create liability for us and negatively affect our business. Any action against us for violation of these laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses, divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business and result in adverse publicity.

To enforce compliance with the federal laws, the U.S. Department of Justice and the OIG, have recently increased their scrutiny of healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Dealing with investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, because of the potential for large monetary exposure under the federal False Claims Act, which provides for treble damages and mandatory minimum penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim or statement, healthcare providers often resolve allegations without admissions of liability for significant and material amounts to avoid the uncertainty of treble damages that may be awarded in litigation proceedings. Such settlements often contain additional compliance and reporting requirements as part of a consent decree, settlement agreement or corporate integrity agreement. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ compliance with the healthcare reimbursement rules and fraud and abuse laws.

The laws, regulations and standards governing the provision of healthcare services may change significantly in the future. We cannot assure you that any new or changed healthcare laws, regulations or standards will not materially adversely affect our business. We cannot assure you that a review of our business by judicial, law enforcement, regulatory or accreditation authorities will not result in a determination that could adversely affect our operations.

In addition, the FDA regulates development, testing, labeling, manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution, record-keeping and reporting requirements for prescription drugs. Compliance with laws and regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may be required in relation to future products or services developed or used by us, in addition to the regulatory process and dialogue in which we are now engaged with the FDA (for more information, please see the risk factor entitled “The FDA believes that rEEG and, potentially, our PEER Online service, constitute a medical device, which is subject to regulation by the FDA. As we continue to market our PEER Online service, there is risk that the FDA will commence an enforcement action against us. The FDA has informed us that our marketing of our rEEG services without prior approval or re-classification by the FDA constitutes a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”). Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in various adverse consequences, including withdrawal of our products and services from the market, or the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions.

The impact of healthcare reform legislation and other changes in the healthcare industry and in healthcare spending on us is currently unknown, but may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our revenue is dependent on the healthcare industry and could be affected by changes in healthcare spending and policy. The healthcare industry is subject to changing political, regulatory and other influences. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA made major changes in how healthcare is delivered and reimbursed, and increased access to health insurance benefits to the uninsured and underinsured population of the United States.

The PPACA, among other things, increased the number of individuals with Medicaid and private insurance coverage, implemented reimbursement policies that tie payment to quality, facilitated the creation of accountable care organizations that may use capitation and other alternative payment methodologies, strengthened enforcement of fraud and abuse laws and encouraged the use of information technology. The future of the PPACA is uncertain and the PPACA remains in a state of near-constant change. Several of these changes require implementing regulations which have not yet been drafted or have been released only as proposed rules.

Such changes in the regulatory environment may also result in changes to our payor mix that may affect our operations and revenue.

In addition, certain provisions of the PPACA authorize voluntary demonstration projects, which include the development of bundling payments for acute, inpatient hospital services, physician services and postacute services for episodes of hospital care. Further, the PPACA may adversely affect payors by increasing medical costs generally, which could have an effect on the industry and potentially impact our business and revenue as payors seek to offset these increases by reducing costs in other areas. The full impact of these changes on us cannot be determined at this time.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments and other third-party payors will pay for healthcare products and services, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The emergence of new technologies may require us to expend significant resources in order to remain competitive.

The U.S. healthcare industry is massive, with a number of large market participants with conflicting agendas, is subject to significant government regulation and is currently undergoing significant change. Changes in our industry, for example, away from high-deductible health plans, or the emergence of new technologies as more competitors enter our market, could result in our solution being less desirable or relevant.

If healthcare benefits trends shift or entirely new technologies are developed that replace existing solutions, our existing or future solutions could be rendered obsolete and our business could be adversely affected. In addition, we may experience difficulties with software development, industry standards, design or marketing that could delay or prevent our development, introduction or implementation of new applications and enhancements.

Any future litigation against us could be costly and time-consuming to defend.

We may become subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business such as claims in connection with commercial disputes or employment claims made by our current or former associates. Litigation may result in substantial costs and may divert management’s attention and resources, which may substantially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Insurance may not cover such claims, may not provide sufficient payments to cover all of the costs to resolve one or more such claims and may not continue to be available on terms acceptable to us. A claim brought against us that is uninsured or underinsured could result in unanticipated costs, thereby reducing our revenue and leading analysts or potential investors to reduce their expectations of our performance, which could reduce the market price of our stock.

We may be subject to regulatory and investigative proceedings, which may find that our policies and procedures do not fully comply with complex and changing healthcare regulations.

While we have established policies and procedures that we believe will be sufficient to ensure that we operate in substantial compliance with applicable laws, regulations and requirements, the criteria are often vague and subject to change and interpretation. We may become the subject of regulatory or other investigations or proceedings, and our interpretations of applicable laws and regulations may be challenged. The defense of any such challenge could result in substantial cost and a diversion of management’s time and attention. Thus, any such challenge could have a material adverse effect on our business, regardless of whether it ultimately is successful. If we fail to comply with any applicable laws, or a determination is made that we have failed to comply with these laws, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Failure to comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act or similar state laws could result in sanctions or limit the claims we can make.

Our promotional activities and materials, including advertising to consumers and physicians, and materials provided to third parties for their use in promoting our products and services, are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including claims which are false, misleading or inadequately substantiated. The FTC typically requires competent and reliable scientific tests or studies to substantiate express or implied claims that a product or service is effective. If the FTC were to interpret our promotional materials as making express or implied claims that our products and services are effective for the treatment of mental illness, it may find that we do not have adequate substantiation for such claims. Failure to comply with the FTC Act or similar laws enforced by state attorneys general and other state and local officials could result in administrative or judicial orders limiting or eliminating the claims we can make about our products and services, and other sanctions including fines.

Our use and disclosure of personally identifiable information, including health information, is subject to federal and state privacy and security regulations, and our failure to comply with those regulations or to adequately secure the information we hold could result in significant liability or reputational harm and, in turn, a material adverse effect on our client base, membership base and revenue.

Numerous state and federal laws and regulations govern the collection, dissemination, use, privacy, confidentiality, security, availability and integrity of PII, including protected health information. These laws and regulations include HIPAA. HIPAA establishes a set of basic national privacy and security standards for the protection of protected health information, or PHI, by health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, referred to as covered entities, and the business associates with whom such covered entities contract for services, which includes us.

HIPAA requires healthcare providers like us to develop and maintain policies and procedures with respect to PHI that is used or disclosed, including the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. HIPAA also implemented the use of standard transaction code sets and standard identifiers that covered entities must use when submitting or receiving certain electronic healthcare transactions, including activities associated with the billing and collection of healthcare claims.

HIPAA imposes mandatory penalties for certain violations. Penalties for violations of HIPAA and its implementing regulations start at $100 per violation and are not to exceed $50,000 per violation, subject to a cap of $1.5 million for violations of the same standard in a single calendar year. However, a single breach incident can result in violations of multiple standards. HIPAA also authorizes state attorneys general to file suit on behalf of their residents. Courts will be able to award damages, costs and attorneys’ fees related to violations of HIPAA in such cases. While HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue us in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI.

In addition, HIPAA mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or HHS conduct periodic compliance audits of HIPAA covered entities or business associates for compliance with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Standards. It also tasks HHS with establishing a methodology whereby harmed individuals who were the victims of breaches of unsecured PHI may receive a percentage of the Civil Monetary Penalty fine paid by the violator.

HIPAA further requires that patients be notified of any unauthorized acquisition, access, use or disclosure of their unsecured PHI that compromises the privacy or security of such information, with certain exceptions related to unintentional or inadvertent use or disclosure by employees or authorized individuals. HIPAA specifies that such notifications must be made “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of the breach.” If a breach affects 500 patients or more, it must be reported to HHS without unreasonable delay, and HHS will post the name of the breaching entity on its public web site. Breaches affecting 500 patients or more in the same state or jurisdiction must also be reported to the local media. If a breach involves fewer than 500 people, the covered entity must record it in a log and notify HHS at least annually.

Numerous other federal and state laws protect the confidentiality, privacy, availability, integrity and security of personally identifiable information, or PII, including PHI. These laws in many cases are more restrictive than, and may not be preempted by, the HIPAA rules and may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and our clients and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability.

New health information standards, whether implemented pursuant to HIPAA, congressional action or otherwise, could have a significant effect on the manner in which we must handle healthcare related data, and the cost of complying with standards could be significant. If we do not comply with existing or new laws and regulations related to PHI, we could be subject to criminal or civil sanctions.

Because of the extreme sensitivity of the PII we store and transmit, the security features of our technology platform are very important. If our security measures, some of which are managed by third parties, are breached or fail, unauthorized persons may be able to obtain access to sensitive client and patient data, including HIPAA PHI. As a result, our reputation could be severely damaged, adversely affecting client and patient confidence. Patients may curtail their use of or stop using our services or our client base could decrease, which would cause our business to suffer. In addition, we could face litigation, damages for contract breach, penalties and regulatory actions for violation of HIPAA and other applicable laws or regulations and significant costs for remediation, notification to individuals and for measures to prevent future occurrences. Any potential security breach could also result in increased costs associated with liability for stolen assets or information, repairing system damage that may have been caused by such breaches, incentives offered to clients or other business partners in an effort to maintain our business relationships after a breach and implementing measures to prevent future occurrences, including organizational changes, deploying additional personnel and protection technologies, training employees and engaging third-party experts and consultants. While we maintain insurance covering certain security and privacy damages and claim expenses in the amount of $100,000 per claim, we may not carry insurance or maintain coverage sufficient to compensate for all liability and in any event, insurance coverage would not address the reputational damage that could result from a security incident.

We outsource important aspects of the storage and transmission of client and patient information, and thus rely on third parties to manage functions that have material cyber-security risks. We attempt to address these risks in part by requiring outsourcing subcontractors who handle client and patient information to sign business associate agreements contractually requiring those subcontractors to adequately safeguard personal health data to the same extent that applies to us. However, we cannot assure you that these contractual measures and other safeguards will adequately protect us from the risks associated with the storage and transmission of client and patients’ proprietary and protected health information.

We also publish statements to patients that describe how we handle and protect personal information. If federal or state regulatory authorities or private litigants consider any portion of these statements to be untrue, we may be subject to claims of deceptive practices, which could lead to significant liabilities and consequences, including, without limitation, costs of responding to investigations, defending against litigation, settling claims and complying with regulatory or court orders.

We also send short message service, or SMS text messages to potential end users who are eligible to use our service through certain customers and partners. While we obtain consent from or on behalf of these individuals to send text messages, federal or state regulatory authorities or private litigants may claim that the notices and disclosures we provide, form of consents we obtain or our SMS texting practices, are not adequate. These SMS texting campaigns are potential sources of risk for class action lawsuits and liability for our company. Numerous class-action suits under federal and state laws have been filed in the past year against companies who conduct SMS texting programs, with many resulting in multi-million dollar settlements to the plaintiffs. Any future such litigation against us could be costly and time-consuming to defend.

We may be subject to healthcare anti-fraud initiatives, which may lead to penalties and adversely affect our business.

State and federal governments are devoting increased attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers, taking an expansive definition of fraud that includes receiving fees in connection with a healthcare business that is found to violate any of the complex regulations described above. While to our knowledge we have not been the subject of any anti-fraud investigations, if such a claim were made defending our business practices could be time consuming and expensive, and an adverse finding could result in substantial penalties or require us to restructure our operations, which we may not be able to do successfully.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly and our stock price could decline or fluctuate if our results do not meet the expectation of analysts or investors.

Management expects that we will experience substantial variations in our operating results from quarter to quarter. We believe that the factors which influence this variability of quarterly results include, without limitation:

As a result of fluctuations in our revenue and operating expenses that may occur, management believes that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not a good indication of our future performance. It is possible that in some future quarter or quarters, our operating results will be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors. In that case, our common stock price could fluctuate significantly or decline.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

In general, under Section 382 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses, or NOLs, to offset future taxable income. A Section 382 “ownership change” generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who own at least 5% of our stock increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. As of September 30, 2017, the Company had Federal net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $51.4 million and State net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $39.8 million. Both the Federal and State net operating loss carryforwards will begin to expire in 2022 and 2017 respectively. Our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards may be limited due to changes in ownership, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. 

In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, some of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code, further limiting our ability to utilize NOLs arising prior to such ownership change in the future. There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspensions on the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. We have recorded a full valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets attributable to our NOLs.

We may fail to successfully manage and maintain the growth of our business, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

As we continue expanding our commercial operations, this expansion could place significant strain on our management, operational and financial resources. To manage future growth, we will need to continue to hire, train, and manage additional employees, particularly a specially-trained sales force to market our PEER Reports.

Confidentiality agreements with employees, licensees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we rely in part on confidentiality provisions in our agreements with employees, licensees, treating physicians, psychiatrists and behavioral health professionals. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Moreover, policing compliance with our confidentiality agreements and nondisclosure agreements and detecting unauthorized use of our technology is difficult and we may, therefore, be unable to determine whether piracy of our technology has actually occurred. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

The liability of our directors and officers is limited.

The applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and our Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws limit the liability of our directors to us and our stockholders for monetary damages for breaches of their fiduciary duties, with certain exceptions, and for other specified acts or omissions of such persons. In addition, the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law and of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, as well as indemnification agreements we have entered into with our directors, and officers, provide for indemnification of such persons under certain circumstances. In the event we are required to indemnify any of our directors or any other person, our financial strength may be harmed, which may in turn lower our stock price.

If we do not retain our senior management and other key employees, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our future success depends on the ability, experience and performance of our senior management and our key professional personnel. Our success therefore depends to a significant extent on retaining the services of George Carpenter, our Chief Executive Officer, our senior product development and clinical managers and others. Because of their ability and experience, if we lose one or more of the members of our senior management or other key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategy could be seriously harmed. While we believe our relationships with our executives are good and do not anticipate any of them leaving in the near future, the loss of the services of any of our senior management could have a material adverse effect on our ability to manage our business. We do not carry key-man life insurance on any of our key employees.

If we do not attract and retain skilled personnel, we may not be able to expand our business.

Our solutions and services are based on a complex database of information. Accordingly, we require skilled medical, scientific and administrative personnel to sell and support our solutions and services. Our future success will depend largely on our ability to continue to hire, train, retain and motivate additional skilled personnel, particularly sales representatives who are responsible for customer education and training and customer support. If we are not able to attract and retain skilled personnel, we will not be able to continue our development and commercialization activities.

We are subject to evolving and expensive corporate governance regulations and requirements. Management has determined that there is a material weakness in our internal controls and procedures under the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB. Our failure to adequately adhere to these requirements or the failure or circumvention of our internal controls and procedures could seriously harm our business.

Because we are a publicly traded company we are subject to certain federal, state and other rules and regulations, including applicable requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Compliance with these evolving regulations is costly and requires a significant diversion of management time and attention, particularly with regard to our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting. Faulty judgments, simple errors or mistakes, or the failure of our personnel to adhere to established controls and procedures may make it difficult for us to ensure that the objectives of the control system are met. A failure of our controls and procedures to detect other than inconsequential errors or fraud could seriously harm our business and results of operations.

As of September 30, 2017, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting. The matter involving internal controls and procedures that our management considered to be a material weakness under the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was a lack of a sufficient complement of personnel with a level of accounting expertise that is commensurate with our financial reporting requirements. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. Failure to provide effective internal controls may cause investors to lose confidence in our financial reporting and may negatively affect the price of our common stock. Moreover, effective internal controls are necessary to produce accurate, reliable financial reports and to prevent fraud. If we have deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting, these deficiencies may negatively impact our business and operations.

Our senior management’s limited recent experience managing a publicly traded company may divert management’s attention from operations and harm our business.

Our management team has relatively limited experience managing a publicly traded company and complying with federal securities laws, including compliance with recently adopted disclosure requirements on a timely basis. Our management will be required to design and implement appropriate programs and policies in responding to increased legal, regulatory compliance and reporting requirements, and any failure to do so could lead to the imposition of fines and penalties and harm our business.

The estimates of market opportunity and forecasts of market growth included in this Form 10-K may prove to be inaccurate, and even if the market in which we compete achieves the forecasted growth, our business could fail to grow at similar rates, if at all.

Market opportunity estimates and growth forecasts are subject to significant uncertainty and are based on assumptions and estimates that may not prove to be accurate. The estimates and forecasts in this Form 10-K relating to the size and expected growth of the telehealth and predictive medicine markets may prove to be inaccurate. Even if the markets in which we compete meet our size estimates and forecasted growth, our business could fail to grow at similar rates, if at all.

Risks Related To An Investment In Our Common Stock

Although our shares of common stock are now listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market, we currently have a limited trading volume, which results in higher price volatility for, and reduced liquidity of, our common stock.

Although our shares of common stock are now listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “MYND,” trading volume in our common stock has been limited and an active trading market for our shares of common stock may never develop or be maintained. The absence of an active trading market increases price volatility and reduces the liquidity of our common stock. As long as this condition continues, the sale of a significant number of shares of common stock at any particular time could be difficult to achieve at the market prices prevailing immediately before such shares are offered.

If we cannot continue to satisfy NASDAQ’s continuing listing criteria, NASDAQ may subsequently delist our Common Stock.

NASDAQ requires us to meet certain financial, public float, bid price and liquidity standards on an ongoing basis in order to continue the listing of our Common Stock. Generally, we must maintain a minimum amount of stockholders equity (generally $2.5 million) and a minimum number of holders of our securities (generally 300 round lot holders). If we fail to meet any of the continuing listing requirements, our Common Stock may be subject to delisting. If our Common Stock is delisted and we are not able to list our Common Stock on another national securities exchange, we expect our securities would be quoted on an over-the-counter market. If this were to occur, our stockholders could face significant material adverse consequences, including limited availability of market quotations for our Common Stock and reduced liquidity for the trading of our securities. In addition, we could experience a decreased ability to issue additional securities and obtain additional financing in the future. There can be no assurance that an active trading market for our Common Stock will develop or be sustained.

If and when a larger trading market for our common stock develops, the market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations, and you may be unable to resell your shares at or above the price at which you acquired them.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of factors that are beyond our control, including, but not limited to:

In the past, stockholders have often instituted securities class action litigation after periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. If a stockholder were to file any such class action suit against us, we would incur substantial legal fees and our management’s attention and resources would be diverted from operating our business to respond to the litigation, which could harm our business.

Recent and future sales of securities by us in equity or debt financings could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and have a material adverse effect on our earnings.

Recent and future sales of common stock or derivative securities by us in private placements or public offerings could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders. For example, the conversion of our $6 million in secured convertible debt at $5.00 per share, plus the interest thereon, which we privately placed between September 2014 and August 2016, resulted in the issuance of 1,263,406 additional shares. In addition, our business strategy may include expansion through internal growth, by acquiring complementary businesses, by acquiring or licensing additional solutions and services, or by establishing strategic relationships with targeted customers and suppliers. In order to do so, or to finance the cost of our other activities, we may issue additional equity securities that could dilute our stockholders’ stock ownership. We may also assume additional debt and incur impairment losses related to goodwill and other tangible assets if we acquire another company and this could negatively impact our earnings and results of operations.

The sale of our Common Stock to Aspire Capital may cause substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and the sale of the shares of Common Stock acquired by Aspire Capital could cause the price of our Common Stock to decline.

Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, we have registered for sale the Commitment Shares that we have issued and additional shares that we have already, or may in the future, sell to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement. It is anticipated that the shares thereby registered will be sold over a period of up to approximately thirty months from the date of the related prospectus. The number of shares ultimately offered for sale by Aspire Capital under such prospectus will be dependent upon the number of shares we elect to sell to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement. Depending on a variety of factors, including market liquidity of our Common Stock, the sale of shares under the Purchase Agreement may cause the trading price of our Common Stock to decline.

As of December 27, 2017, Aspire Capital has purchased $145,000 of Common Stock under the Purchase Agreement. Aspire Capital may ultimately purchase all, some or none of the remaining $9.9 million of Common Stock that, together with the Commitment Shares, we have registered. Aspire Capital may sell all, some or none of our shares that it holds or comes to hold under the Purchase Agreement. Sales by Aspire Capital of shares acquired pursuant to the Purchase Agreement under an effective registration statement, may result in dilution to the interests of other holders of our Common Stock. The sale of a substantial number of shares of our Common Stock by Aspire Capital, or anticipation of such sales, could cause the trading price of our Common Stock to decline or make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise desire. However, we have the right under the Purchase Agreement to control the timing and amount of sales of our shares to Aspire Capital, and the Purchase Agreement may be terminated by us at any time at our discretion without any penalty or cost to us. 

Were our common stock to be considered penny stock, and therefore become subject to the penny stock rules, U.S. broker-dealers may be discouraged from effecting transactions in shares of our common stock.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has adopted a number of rules to regulate “penny stock” that may restrict transactions involving shares of our common stock. Such rules include Rules 3a51-1, 15g-1, 15g-2, 15g-3, 15g-4, 15g-5, 15g-6, 15g-7, and 15g-9 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These rules may have the effect of reducing the liquidity of penny stocks. “Penny stocks” generally are equity securities with a price of less than $5.00 per share (other than securities registered on certain national securities exchanges or quoted on the NASDAQ Stock Market if current price and volume information with respect to transactions in such securities is provided by the exchange or system). Our securities have in the past constituted “penny stock” within the meaning of the rules. Were our common stock to again be considered penny stock, and therefore become subject to the penny stock rules, the additional sales practice and disclosure requirements imposed upon U.S. broker-dealers may discourage such broker-dealers from effecting transactions in shares of our common stock, which could severely limit the market liquidity of such shares and impede their sale in the secondary market.

A U.S. broker-dealer selling penny stock to anyone other than an established customer or “accredited investor” (generally, an individual with net worth in excess of $1,000,000 or an annual income exceeding $200,000, or $300,000 together with his or her spouse) must make a special suitability determination for the purchaser and must receive the purchaser’s written consent to the transaction prior to sale, unless the broker-dealer or the transaction is otherwise exempt. In addition, the penny stock regulations require the U.S. broker-dealer to deliver, prior to any transaction involving a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prepared in accordance with SEC standards relating to the penny stock market, unless the broker-dealer or the transaction is otherwise exempt. A U.S. broker-dealer is also required to disclose commissions payable to the U.S. broker-dealer and the registered representative and current quotations for the securities. Finally, a U.S. broker-dealer is required to submit monthly statements disclosing recent price information with respect to the penny stock held in a customer’s account and information with respect to the limited market in penny stocks.

Stockholders should be aware that, according to SEC, the market for penny stocks has suffered in recent years from patterns of fraud and abuse. Such patterns include (i) control of the market for the security by one or a few broker-dealers that are often related to the promoter or issuer; (ii) manipulation of prices through prearranged matching of purchases and sales and false and misleading press releases; (iii) “boiler room” practices involving high-pressure sales tactics and unrealistic price projections by inexperienced sales persons; (iv) excessive and undisclosed bid-ask differentials and markups by selling broker-dealers; and (v) the wholesale dumping of the same securities by promoters and broker-dealers after prices have been manipulated to a desired level, resulting in investor losses. Our management is aware of the abuses that have occurred historically in the penny stock market. Although we do not expect to be in a position to dictate the behavior of the market or of broker-dealers who participate in the market, management will strive within the confines of practical limitations to prevent the described patterns from being established with respect to our securities in the event our common stock were to again be considered a penny stock and therefore become subject to penny stock rules.

Other than a dividend of warrants each exercisable for one share of common stock that was distributed on July 27, 2017, we have not paid dividends in the past and do not expect to pay dividends for the foreseeable future, and any return on investment may be limited to potential future appreciation on the value of our common stock.

We currently intend to retain any future earnings to support the development and expansion of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our payment of any future dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including without limitation, our financial condition, operating results, cash needs, growth plans and the terms of any credit agreements that we may be a party to at the time. To the extent we do not pay dividends, our stock may be less valuable because a return on investment will only occur if and to the extent our stock price appreciates, which may never occur. In addition, investors must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation as the only way to realize their investment, and if the price of our stock does not appreciate, then there will be no return on investment. Investors seeking cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

The rights of the holders of common stock may be impaired by the potential issuance of preferred stock.

Our certificate of incorporation gives our board of directors the right to create new series of preferred stock. As a result, the board of directors may, without stockholder approval, issue preferred stock with voting, dividend, conversion, liquidation or other rights which could adversely affect the voting power and equity interest of the holders of common stock. Preferred stock, which could be issued with the right to more than one vote per share, could be utilized as a method of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change of control. The possible impact on takeover attempts could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Although we have no present intention to issue any additional shares of preferred stock or to create any new series of preferred stock, we may issue such shares in the future.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders can exert significant influence over us and may make decisions that are not in the best interests of all stockholders.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders (greater than 5% stockholders) collectively control approximately 39.32% of our issued and outstanding common stock and 20.00% on a fully diluted basis. As a result, these stockholders are able to affect the outcome of, or exert significant influence over, all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal of directors and any change in control. This concentration of ownership of our common stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of us or otherwise discouraging or preventing a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us. This, in turn, could have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock. It could also prevent our stockholders from realizing a premium over the market prices for their shares of common stock. Moreover, the interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders, and accordingly, they could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements that we would not otherwise consider.

Transactions involving our common stock engaged in by our largest stockholders, directors or executive officers may have an adverse effect on the price of our stock.

Our officers, directors and principal stockholders (greater than 5% stockholders) collectively control approximately 39.32%of our issued and outstanding common stock and 20.00% on a fully diluted basis. Subsequent sales of our shares by these stockholders could have the effect of lowering our stock price. The perceived risk associated with the possible sale of a large number of shares by these stockholders, or the adoption of significant short positions by hedge funds or other significant investors, could cause some of our stockholders to sell their stock, thus causing the price of our stock to decline. In addition, actual or anticipated downward pressure on our stock price due to actual or anticipated sales of stock by our directors or officers could cause other institutions or individuals to engage in short sales of our common stock, which may further cause the price of our stock to decline. 

From time to time our directors and executive officers may sell shares of our common stock on the open market. These sales will be publicly disclosed in filings made with the SEC. In the future, our directors and executive officers may sell a significant number of shares for a variety of reasons unrelated to the performance of our business. Our stockholders may perceive these sales as a reflection on management’s view of the business and result in some stockholders selling their shares of our common stock. These sales could cause the price of our stock to drop.

Anti-takeover provisions may limit the ability of another party to acquire us, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Delaware law contains provisions that could discourage, delay or prevent a third party from acquiring us, even if doing so may be beneficial to our stockholders, which could cause our stock price to decline. In addition, these provisions could limit the price investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock.

Non-U.S. investors may have difficulty effecting service of process against us or enforcing judgments against us in courts of non-U.S. jurisdictions.

We are a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. All of our directors and officers reside in the United States. It may not be possible for non-U.S. investors to effect service of process within their own jurisdictions upon our company and our directors and officers. In addition, it may not be possible for non-U.S. investors to collect from our company, its directors and officers, judgments obtained in courts in such non-U.S. jurisdictions predicated on non-U.S. legislation.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports about us, our business or our market, or if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. If any of the analysts who may cover us change their recommendation regarding our stock adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, our stock price would likely decline. If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

ITEM 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

ITEM 2. Properties

The Company’s Headquarters and Neurometric Services business is located at 26522 La Alameda, Suite 290, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, which is 2,290 sqft in size. The lease period commenced on February 1, 2016 and terminates on January 31, 2018. The rent for the first four months is $2,290 per month, which is abated by 50%; for months 5 through 12, the rent increases to $4,580 per month and for the final 12 months the rent will increase by 5% to $4,809 per month. On October 31, 2017, the Company signed an extension to the existing lease for a period of twelve months and shall commence on February 1, 2018, and shall terminate on January 31, 2019. The base rent will increase to $5,267 per month effective February 1, 2018.

On February 2, 2016, we signed a 23.5 months lease for 1,092 sqft of office space to house our EEG testing center. The premises are located at 25201 Paseo De Alicia, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. The lease period commenced on February 15, 2016 and terminates on January 31, 2018. The rent for first half month of February was prorated at $928; for the next 11 months the rent is $1,856 per month, and for the remaining twelve months the rent will increase by 3% to $1,911 per month. On November 10, 2017, the company signed an extension to the existing lease for a period of twelve months, and shall commence on February 1, 2018, and shall terminate on January 31, 2019. The base rent will increase to $2,129 per month, effective February 1, 2018. The company also expanded their premises at 25201 Paseo De Alicia, which is 1,595 sqft in size. On November 10, 2017, the company signed an extension for a period of fourteen months, which commenced on December 1, 2017, and shall terminate on January 31, 2019. The base rent is $3,269 per month effective December 1, 2017.

On August 1, 2017, we signed a four month lease for two offices to be used for EEG testing in the New York area. The premises are located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 350, New York, New York 10170. The lease period commenced on August 1, 2017 and terminates on December 31, 2017, and will not be renewed. The rent is $4,500 per month, with first and last monthly lease fee of $9,000 on effective date.

On September 14, 2017, we signed a three year lease for 1,180 square feet. The premises are located at 8000 Westpark Drive, Suite 125, Tysons, Virginia 22102. The lease period commenced on September 15, 2017 and terminates on September 30, 2020. The rent for September 15, 2017 through September 30, 2018 is prorated at $2,507, the next 12 months the rent is prorated at $2,576.46; and for the remaining twelve months the rent is prorated at $2,647. The landlord abated one hundred percent of the base rent for the first two full calendar months of the term: October and November 2017.

The Company incurred rent expense from operations of $84,406 and $64,900 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

On November 13, 2017, Arcadian assumed a sublease a three year term for 2250 square feet. The premises are located at 7241 Hollywood Road, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034. The lease terminates on December 31, 2017 and the rent is $2,500.00 a month.

ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings

The Company is not currently party to any legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which, in the Company’s management’s opinion, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

ITEM 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Common Stock

Our common stock has been listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “MYND” since July 14, 2017. Prior thereto, our common stock was quoted under the symbol “MYAN” (and previously “CNSO”) on the OTCQB marketplace.

 The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low bid information for our common stock as determined from sporadic quotations on the OTCQB marketplace (prior to July 14, 2017) and the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Capital Market (subsequent to July 14, 2017). The OTCQB marketplace quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

On December 28, 2017, the closing sales price of our common stock as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market was $3.34 per share.  As of December 28, 2017, there were 286 record holders of our common stock.  The number of holders of record is based on the actual number of holders registered on the books of our transfer agent and does not reflect holders of shares in “street name” or persons, partnerships, associations, corporations or other entities identified in security position listings maintained by depository trust companies.

Dividend Rights

Other than the warrant dividend described in the following paragraph we have not paid or declared cash distributions or other dividends on our common stock and we do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.  We currently intend to retain all earnings, if and when generated, to finance our operations.  The declaration of cash dividends in the future will be determined by the board of directors based upon our earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other relevant factors.

On July 13, 2017, the Company declared a special dividend of warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock to record holders of Common Stock as of such date. Warrants to purchase 2,539,061 shares of Common Stock were distributed pro rata to all holders of common stock on the record date. These warrants will be exercisable (in accordance with their terms) to purchase one share of common stock, at an exercise price of $5.25 per share. The warrants will become exercisable commencing not less than 12 months following their July 27, 2017 distribution date and will expire five years thereafter.

The dividend warrant has an exercise price of $5.25 and expires on July 26, 2022. We estimated the fair value of the dividend warrant at issuance date to be $16,375,394 using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions: market price of the stock of $6.55 per share, time to maturity of 5 years, volatility of 211.6%, zero expected dividend rate and risk-free rate of 1.89%. These warrants qualify for equity treatment. The allocation of the fair value of these warrants was included in additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company also recognized a dividend related to the dividend warrants as every shareholder was entitled to receive one warrant for every share of common stock for no consideration given. Accordingly, the Company recognized a $16,375,394 dividend at closing.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

For information relating to the Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans, please see “Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management Related Stockholders Matters.”

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

The information required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 701 of Regulation S-K is incorporated herein by reference to our Company’s current reports on Form 8-K.

None of the sales of securities referred to in such section was registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).  Each of the purchasers represented to us that he/she/it was an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Regulation D under the Securities Act.  In addition, no general solicitation or advertising was used in connection with the sales.  In making the sales without registration under the Securities Act, the Company relied upon the exemptions from registration contained in Sections 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and in Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act.

ITEM 6. Selected Financial Data

Not applicable.

ITEM 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes provided under Part II, Item 8 of this annual report on Form 10-K.  This discussion summarizes the significant factors affecting the consolidated operating results, financial condition and liquidity and cash flows of MYnd Analytics, Inc. for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.  Except for historical information, the matters discussed in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and are based on the beliefs and assumptions of our management as of the date hereof based on information currently available to our management. Use of words such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “should,” “forecasts,” “goal,” “likely” or similar expressions, indicate a forward-looking statement. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results may differ materially from the forward-looking statements we make. See “Risk Factors” elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of certain risks associated with our business.  We disclaim any obligation to update forward-looking statements for any reason.

Overview

MYnd employs a clinically validated scalable technology platform to support personalized care for mental health patients. The Company utilizes its patented machine learning, artificial intelligence, data analytics platform for the delivery of telebehavioral health services and its PEER predictive analytics product offering. On November 13, 2017, the Company acquired Arcadian. Arcadian manages the delivery of telepsychiatry and telebehavioral health services through a nationwide network of licensed and credentialed psychiatrists and master-level therapists. The Company is commercializing its PEER predictive analytics tool to help physicians reduce trial and error treatment in mental health. MYnd’s patented clinically validated technology platform (“PEER Online”) utilizes complex algorithms to analyze electroencephalograms to generate PEER Reports to predict individual response to a range of medications prescribed for the treatment of behavioral disorders including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and other non-psychotic disorders.

Since our inception, we have never been profitable and we have generated significant net losses. As of September 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $75.65 million; and as of September 30, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $68.53 million. We incurred operating losses of $7.10 million and $3.77 million for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and incurred net losses of $7.12 million and $5.94 million for those respective periods.

For the twelve months ended September 30, 2017, other expenses were $6,600. For the twelve months ended September 30, 2016, our net loss was exacerbated by net non-cash, other expense charges in the aggregate amount of $1.9 million as a result of non-cash interest charges, accounting for the extinguishment of debt and derivative liability transactions resulting conversion of $6 million of convertible debt and the cancellation of all warrants that had been issued in association with the convertible debt.

We anticipate that a substantial portion of our capital resources and efforts would be focused on conducting our clinical trials, the scale-up of our commercial sales organization, further research, product development and other general corporate purposes, including accrued but unpaid expenses. We also anticipate that some future research and development projects would be funded by grants or third-party sponsorship, along with funding by the Company.

As of September 30, 2017, our current assets of approximately $5.69 million exceeded our current liabilities of approximately $1.55 million by approximately $4.15 million.  During fiscal year 2017 we raised gross cash proceeds of $2.98 million from private placements of Common Stock at $6.25 per share. For details of these financings see “Private Placement Transactions―Private Placement of Common Stock ” below.

On February 23, 2017, pursuant to a purchase notice issued by the Company to Aspire Capital pursuant to the Aspire Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital purchased 20,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $7.25, resulting in gross cash proceeds to the Company of $145,000.

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million.

During fiscal year 2016, we raised $2.95 million in the private placement of secured convertible debt convertible at $10.00 per share. For details of these financings see “Private Placement Transactions―Private Placement of Common Stock” below.

On December 6, 2016, the Company, entered into a common stock purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (“Aspire Capital”) which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 30-month term of the Purchase Agreement. For details of the Purchase Agreement financing see “Private Placement Transactions―The Aspire Capital Equity Line” below.

We will need additional funding to conduct the planned clinical trials and to conduct a marketing campaign to significantly increase the demand for our PEER Online services. We are actively exploring additional sources of capital. However, we cannot offer assurances that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we were to raise additional funds, any additional equity funding may result in significant dilution to existing stockholders, and, if we incur additional debt financing, a substantial additional portion of our operating cash flow may be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on such indebtedness, thus limiting the funds available for our business activities. If adequate funds are not available, it will likely force us to cease operations or would otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations.

Private Placement Transactions

Private Placement and Conversion of Convertible Notes; Cancellation of Warrants

        On September 19, 2016, the Company entered into the Second Omnibus Amendment (the “Second Omnibus Amendment”), with a majority of over 80% of the holders of certain convertible notes issued between September 22, 2014 and August 16, 2016 in the aggregate principal amount of $6,000,000 (the “Notes”), thereby amending: (i) the Notes, (ii) that certain second amended and restated note and warrant purchase agreement dated as of December 23, 2015, as thereafter amended and (iii) the warrants (“Warrants”) issued in connection with the Notes. Pursuant to the Second Omnibus Amendment, the Company had the option, exercisable at any time after September 1, 2016, to mandatorily convert all Notes into shares of Common Stock at $5.00 per share. The Company exercised its mandatory conversion right on September 19, 2016 and, on September 21, 2016, (i) converted the entire outstanding $6,000,000 principal balance of the Notes, plus accrued interest of $317,000 thereon, into an aggregate of 1,263,406 shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $5.00 per share, and (ii) canceled all Warrants. Of the $6.0 million Notes sold by the Company, $5.3 million were purchased by directors, an officer and greater than 5% shareholders of the Company.

Private Placement of Common Stock

On November 30, 2016, the Company sold and issued an aggregate of 160,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in a private placement to six accredited investors, for which it received gross cash proceeds to the Company of $1,000,000. Three of the six accredited investors were affiliates who represented 50% of the cash proceeds as follows: Dr. Robin Smith, our Chairman of the Board purchased 16,000 shares for $100,000; John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 32,000 shares for $200,000; and the Tierney Family Trust, of which our Board member, Thomas Tierney is a trustee, purchased 32,000 shares for $200,000. In connection with this private placement, certain investors (comprised of our executive officers and current and former directors) agreed to a 180-day “lock-up”, commencing on November 30, 2016, with respect to shares of Common Stock and other of our securities that they beneficially own, including securities that are convertible into shares of Common Stock and securities that are exchangeable or exercisable for shares of Common Stock. As a result, subject to certain exceptions, for a period of 180 days following November 30, 2016, such persons may not offer, sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of these securities without the Company’s prior written consent. The “lock-up” period expired without any persons requesting the Company’s consent or dispose of these securities.

On December 21, 2016, the Company sold and issued a further 48,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in a private placement to four accredited investors who were new to the Company, for which it received gross cash proceeds to the Company of $300,000.

On December 29, 2016, the Company sold and issued an additional 32,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in a private placement to two accredited investors, resulting in gross cash proceeds of $200,000, in which one investor, John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 16,000 shares for $100,000.

From February 10, 2017 through March 21, 2017, the Company sold and issued an additional 237,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in private placements to four affiliated and accredited investors, resulting in gross cash proceeds to the Company of $1,481,300. The affiliated investors were as follows: RSJ, purchased 160,000 shares for $1,000,000; John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 72,000 shares for $450,000; Geoffrey Harris is a member of the Board purchased 5,000 shares for $31,300. RSJ is a greater than 10% stockholder of the Company and Michal Votruba, who serves as a Director for Life Sciences at the RSJ/Gradus Fund, has served as a member of our Board since July 30, 2015. The subscription agreement between the Company and RSJ provided for the grant to RSJ by the Company of a right of first refusal through June 30, 2018, to license or to have distribution rights in Europe with respect to any of the Company’s technology and/or intellectual property.

These private placements were made pursuant to an exemption from registration afforded by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Regulation D thereunder.

The Aspire Capital Equity Line

On December 6, 2016, the Company, entered into the Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 30-month term of the Purchase Agreement. In consideration for entering into the Purchase Agreement, concurrently with the execution of the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Aspire Capital 80,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. See Note 5. Stockholders’ Equity”, Consolidated Financial Statements for additional detail.

Under the Purchase Agreement, after the SEC declared effective the registration statement referred to above, on any trading day selected by the Company on which the closing sale price of its Common Stock is equal or greater than $0.50 per share, the Company has the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a purchase notice, directing Aspire Capital (as principal) to purchase up to 50,000 shares of Common Stock per business day, up to $10.0 million of the Company’s common stock in the aggregate at a per share purchase price equal to the lesser of:

The Company has the right, in its sole discretion, to present Aspire Capital with a volume-weighted average price purchase notice (each, a “VWAP Purchase Notice”) directing Aspire Capital to purchase an amount of stock equal to up to 30% of the aggregate shares of Common Stock traded on its principal market on the next trading day (the “VWAP Purchase Date”), subject to a maximum number of shares the Company may determine. The purchase price per share pursuant to such VWAP Purchase Notice is generally 95% of the volume-weighted average price for Common Stock traded on its principal market on the VWAP Purchase Date.

The purchase price will be adjusted for any reorganization, recapitalization, non-cash dividend, stock split, or other similar transaction occurring during the period(s) used to compute the Purchase Price. The Company may deliver multiple Purchase Notices and VWAP Purchase Notices to Aspire Capital from time to time during the term of the Purchase Agreement, so long as the most recent purchase has been completed.

The Purchase Agreement provides that the Company and Aspire Capital will not effect any sales under the Purchase Agreement on any purchase day selected where the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock is less than $0.50. There are no trading volume requirements or restrictions under the Purchase Agreement, and the Company will control the timing and amount of sales of Common Stock to Aspire Capital. Aspire Capital has no right to require any sales by the Company, but is obligated to make purchases from the Company as directed by the Company in accordance with the Purchase Agreement. There are no limitations on use of proceeds, financial or business covenants, restrictions on future fundings, rights of first refusal, participation rights, penalties or liquidated damages in the Purchase Agreement. In consideration for entering into the Purchase Agreement, concurrently with the execution of the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Aspire Capital 80,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Commitment Shares”). The Purchase Agreement may be terminated by the Company at any time, at its discretion, without any cost to the Company. Aspire Capital has agreed that neither it nor any of its agents, representatives and affiliates shall engage in any direct or indirect short-selling or hedging of Common Stock during any time prior to the termination of the Purchase Agreement. Any proceeds from the Company receives under the Purchase Agreement are expected to be used for working capital and general corporate purposes.

The issuance of the Commitment Shares and all other shares of Common Stock that may be issued from time to time to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement are exempt from registration under the Securities Act, pursuant to the exemption for transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

On February 23, 2017, pursuant to a purchase notice issued by the Company to Aspire Capital pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital purchased 20,000 shares of Common Stock, at a per share price of $7.25, resulting in gross cash proceeds of $145,000.

Capitalization

At our annual meeting of stockholders held on October 28, 2015 (the “2015 Stockholder Meeting”), our stockholders approved a proposal to amend the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation in order to increase the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under our Charter from 180,000,000 to 500,000,000.

Also at our 2015 Stockholder Meeting, our stockholders approved an amendment to amend the Company’s Charter for the purposes of effecting a reverse stock-split of our Common Stock at a later time and at any time until the next meeting of the Company’s stockholders which are entitled to vote on such actions, by a ratio of not less than 1-for-10 and not more than 1-for-200, and to authorize the Board of Directors (“Board”) to determine, at its discretion, the timing of the amendment and the specific ratio of the reverse stock-split.

On August 24, 2016, the Board approved a 1-for-200 reverse stock-split which was effected on September 21, 2016.

On September 19, 2016, pursuant to the Second Omnibus Amendment, the Company exercised the Mandatory Conversion and, on September 21, 2016, (i) converted the entire outstanding principal balance of $6,000,000, plus accrued interest of $317,000 on all of the Notes into 1,263,406 shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $5.00 per share and (ii) canceled all 600,000 Warrants.

At the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of MYnd Analytics, Inc. (“the Company”), held on August 21, 2017 (the “2017 Annual Meeting”), the holders of the Company’s common stock voted to amend the Company’s certificate of incorporation (the “Charter”) to reduce the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under the Charter from 500,000,000 to 250,000,000. The certificate evidencing the resolution reducing the shares will be filed with Delaware Secretary of state, shortly after these financial statements are issued.

1)    For more detail on the exercise prices and expiration dates of the options and warrants please refer to the “Stock Option Plans” and “Warrants to Purchase Common Stock” sections of Note 5. Stockholders’ Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Warrants

On July 13, 2017, the Company declared a special dividend of warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock to record holders of Common Stock as of such date. Warrants to purchase 2,539,061 shares of Common Stock were distributed pro rata to all holders of common stock on the record date. These warrants will be exercisable (in accordance with their terms) to purchase one share of common stock, at an exercise price of $5.25 per share. The warrants will become exercisable commencing not less than 12 months following their July 27, 2017 distribution date and will expire five years thereafter.

The dividend warrant has an exercise price of $5.25 and expires on July 26, 2022. We estimated the fair value of the dividend warrant at issuance date to be $16,375,394 using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions: market price of the stock of $6.55 per share, time to maturity of 5 years, volatility of 211.6%, zero expected dividend rate and risk-free rate of 1.89%. These warrants qualify for equity treatment. The allocation of the fair value of these warrants was included in additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company also recognized a dividend related to the dividend warrants as every shareholder was entitled to receive one warrant for every share of common stock for no consideration given. Accordingly, the Company recognized a $16,375,394 dividend at closing.

On July 19, 2017, the Company issued 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock and accompanying Warrants to purchase up to 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock in connection with an underwritten public offering. The public offering warrant has an exercise price of $5.25 and expires on July 19, 2022. We estimated the fair value of the public offering warrant at issuance date to be $10,802,728 using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions: market price of the stock of $6.55 per share, time to maturity of 5 years, volatility of 211.6%, zero expected dividend rate and risk-free rate of 1.89%. These warrants qualify for equity treatment. The allocation of the fair value of these warrants was included in additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet.

As part of the underwritten public offering on July 19, 2017, the Company issued Common Stock warrants to purchase 134,000 shares of common stock to the underwriters as part of the services performed by them in connection with the underwritten public offering. The underwriter warrant has an exercise price of $6.04 and expires on July 19, 2022. We estimated the fair value of the underwriter warrant at issuance date to be $863,225 using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions: market price of the stock of $6.55 per share, time to maturity of 5 years, volatility of 211.6%, zero expected dividend rate and risk-free rate of 1.89%. These warrants qualify for equity treatment. The allocation of the fair value of these warrants was included in additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet.

On August 23, 2017, the Company issued common stock warrants to purchase 213,800 shares of common stock to the underwriters as part of the overallotment attributed to the July 2017 underwritten public offering. The overallotment warrant has an exercise price of $5.25 and expires on July 19, 2022. We estimated the fair value of the overallotment warrant at issuance date to be $880,710 using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following assumptions: market price of the stock of $4.20 per share, time to maturity of 5 years, volatility of 211.6%, zero expected dividend rate and risk-free rate of 1.89%. These warrants qualify for equity treatment. The allocation of the fair value of these warrants was included in additional paid-in capital on the consolidated balance sheet.

1) For more detail on the exercise prices and expiration dates of the options and warrants please refer to the “Stock Option Plans” and “Warrants to Purchase Common Stock” sections of Note 5. Stockholders’ Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Prior Year Revision

During the quarter ended June 30, 2017, we revised our consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016, December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017 to correct the accounting for certain common stock awards granted in 2015 and 2016 to board members. Previously, certain stock grant compensation was presented as prepaid common stock when the compensation should have been recognized ratably as the stock awards vested. The revision, which we determined is not a material error, had no impact on loss from operations, or cash flows.

The impact on the individual line items of our consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016, December 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017 from the adjustment was as follows:

Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2016:

Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2016:

Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2017:

Financial Operations Overview

Revenues

Our neurometric services revenues are derived from the sale of PEER Reports to physicians. Physicians are generally billed upon delivery of a PEER Report. The list price of our PEER Reports to physicians is $400 per report which excludes the cost of conducting the EEG.

Cost of Revenues

Cost of revenues are for neurometric services and represent the cost of direct labor, the costs associated with external processing, analysis and consulting services necessary to render an individualized test result and any miscellaneous support expenses. Costs associated with performing our tests are expensed as the tests are performed. We continually evaluate the feasibility of hiring our own personnel to perform most of the processing and analysis necessary to render a PEER Report.

Research and Product Development

Research and Product development expenses are associated with our neurometric services and primarily represent costs incurred to design and conduct clinical studies, to recruit patients into the studies, to improve PEER Report processing, to add data to the MYND Database, to improve analytical techniques and advance application of the methodology. We charge all research and development expenses to operations as they are incurred.

Sales and Marketing

For our neurometric services, our selling and marketing expenses consist primarily of personnel, media, support and travel costs to inform user organizations and consumers of our products and services. Additional marketing expenses are the costs of educating physicians, laboratory personnel, other healthcare professionals regarding our products and services.

General and Administrative

Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel, occupancy, legal, audit, consulting and administrative support costs for our neurometric services.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

This management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and expenses and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results could therefore differ materially from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 2 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report. We believe the following critical accounting policies reflect our more significant estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Revenue Recognition

We have generated limited revenues since our inception. Revenues for our Neurometric Service product are recognized when a PEER Report is delivered to a Client-Physician.

Stock-based Compensation Expense

Stock-based compensation expense, which is a non-cash charge, results from stock option grants. Compensation cost is measured at the grant date based on the calculated fair value of the award. We recognize stock-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the underlying option. The amount of stock-based compensation expense expected to be amortized in future periods may decrease if unvested options are subsequently cancelled or may increase if future option grants are made.

Long-Lived Assets and Intangible Assets

Property and equipment and intangible assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. If the Company determines that the carrying value of the asset is not recoverable, a permanent impairment charge is recorded for the amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived or intangible asset exceeds its fair value. Intangible assets with finite lives are amortized on a straight-line basis over their useful lives of ten years.

Costs for software developed for internal use are accounted for through the capitalization of those costs incurred in connection with developing or obtaining internal-use software. Capitalized costs for internal-use software are included in intangible assets in the consolidated balance sheet. Capitalized software development costs are amortized over three years. Costs incurred during the preliminary project along with post-implementation stages of internal use computer software development and costs incurred to maintain existing product offerings are expensed as incurred. The capitalization and ongoing assessment of recoverability of development costs require considerable judgment by management with respect to certain external factors, including, but not limited to, technological and economic feasibility and estimated economic life. The Company will begin amortizing the software over its estimated economic life once it has been placed into service.

Derivative accounting for convertible debt and warrants

The Company evaluates all of its agreements to determine if such instruments have derivatives or contain features that qualify as embedded derivatives. For derivative financial instruments that are accounted for as liabilities, the derivative instrument is initially recorded at its fair value and is then re-valued at each reporting date, with changes in the fair value reported in the consolidated statements of operations. For stock-based derivative financial instruments, the Company uses a weighted average Black-Scholes option pricing model to value the derivative instruments at inception and on subsequent valuation dates. The classification of derivative instruments, including whether such instruments should be recorded as liabilities or as equity, is evaluated at the end of each reporting period. Derivative instrument liabilities are classified in the balance sheet as current or non-current based on whether or not net-cash settlement of the derivative instrument could be required within 12 months of the balance sheet date. As of September 30, 2017, the Company had no financial instruments that contain embedded derivative features.

Results of Operations for the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2017 and 2016

MYnd Analytics is focused on research and the commercialization of its PEER Reports through its Neurometric Services. The Company has commenced a clinical trial with the Canadian Armed Forces and a second clinical trial with a large provider group, with additional clinical trials and pilot studies being planned. Currently the Company is delivering PEER Reports to a core group of physicians. The PEER Report enables psychiatrists and other physician/prescribers to make more informed, patient-specific decisions when treating individual patients for behavioral (psychiatric and/or addictive) disorders based on the patient’s own physiology

The following table presents consolidated statement of operations data for each of the periods:

Revenues

With respect to our Neurometric Services business, the number of third party non-study related, paid PEER Reports delivered increased by 91, to 295 reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 compared to 204 reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. The average revenue was $435 per report for the 2017 period; in the prior year the revenue per report was $417. The total numbers of free PEER Reports processed were 160 and 29 for the 2017 and 2016 fiscal years, respectively. These free PEER Reports are used for training, database-enhancement and compassionate-use purposes.

Cost of Revenues

Neurometric Services cost of revenues consists of payroll costs (including stock-based compensation), consulting costs, and other miscellaneous charges were as follows:

(1) Consulting fees increased by $48,000 for the 2017 period, as we are using additional consultants to process EEG readings for patients.

Research

Research expenses consist of payroll costs (including stock-based compensation), consulting fees, travel, conference and other miscellaneous costs which were as follows:

Comparing the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, with the corresponding period in 2016:

Product Development

Product Development expenses consist of payroll costs (including stock-based compensation), consulting fees, system development costs, conference, travel and miscellaneous costs which were as follows:

Comparing the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, with the corresponding period in 2016:

Sales and marketing 

Sales and marketing expenses associated with our Neurometric Services business consist primarily of payroll and benefit costs, including stock-based compensation, advertising and marketing, consulting fees and miscellaneous expenses. The reason for the change in these expenses is discussed below.

Comparing the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, with the same period in 2016:

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses for our Neurometric Services business are largely comprised of payroll and benefit costs, including stock based compensation, legal fees, patent costs, other professional and consulting fees, general administrative and occupancy costs, dues and subscriptions, conference and travel costs. The reason for the change in these expenses are discussed below.

Comparing the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, with the same period in 2016:

Other income (expense)

For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, net other non-operating income (expenses) for Neurometric Services were as follows:

For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, we incurred non-cash interest charges totaling $2,721,500 of which $217,300 was accrued interest on our convertible promissory notes at 5% per annum. The remaining balance was comprised of $1,134,800 of beneficial conversion discount amortization on the convertible promissory notes and $1,365,200 for the valuation of warrants; and only $4,200 was for actual net interest paid in cash during that period.

Net Loss

The net loss for our Neurometric Services business of $7.11 million for the year ended September 30, 2017, compared to the approximately $5.94 million loss in the corresponding prior year is due to an increase in the Company’s total operating expenses.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), which contemplate continuation of the Company as a going concern.

Since our inception, we have never been profitable and we have generated significant losses. The Company has a limited operating history and its operations are subject to certain problems, expenses, difficulties, delays, complications, risks and uncertainties frequently encountered in the operation of a business with a limited operating history. These risks include the ability to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, if at all, the failure to develop or supply technology or services to meet the demands of the marketplace, the failure to attract and retain qualified personnel, competition within the industry, government regulation and the general strength of regional and national economies.

As of September 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $75.65 million compared to our accumulated deficit as of September 30, 2016, which was approximately $68.53 million. Our management expects that with our proposed clinical trials, sales and marketing and general and administrative costs, our expenditures will continue to grow and, as a result, we will need to generate significant product revenues to achieve profitability. The Company continues to explore additional sources of capital but there is substantial doubt as to whether any financing arrangement will be available in amounts and on terms acceptable to the Company to permit it to continue operations.

As of September 30, 2017, we had $5.45 million in cash and cash equivalents and a working capital surplus of approximately $4.15 million. This is compared to our cash position of $318,200 in cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2016, and a working capital deficit of $1.14 million.

The Company has been funded through multiple rounds of private placements, primarily from members of our Board or our affiliates. For details please refer to Item 2. Private Placement Transactions and Notes 3, 7 and 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

On November 30, 2016, and December 21, 2016 the Company sold and issued an aggregate of 208,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in private placements to a total of ten accredited investors, for which it received gross cash proceeds to the Company of $1,300,000. Three of the ten accredited investors were affiliates who represented 38.5% of the cash proceeds as follows: Dr. Robin Smith, our Chairman of the Board purchased 16,000 shares for $100,000; John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 32,000 shares for $200,000; and the Tierney Family Trust of which our former Board member, Thomas Tierney is a trustee, purchased 32,000 shares for $200,000. Also on December 29, 2016, the Company sold and issued an additional 32,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in a private placement to two accredited investors, resulting in gross cash proceeds of $200,000, in which one investor, John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 16,000 shares for $100,000.

On December 6, 2016, the Company, entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 30-month term of the Purchase Agreement.

From February 10, 2017 through March 21, 2017, the Company sold and issued an additional 237,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in private placements to four affiliated and accredited investors, resulting in gross cash proceeds to the Company of $1,481,300. The affiliated investors were as follows: RSJ, purchased 160,000 shares for $1,000,000; John Pappajohn, a member of the Board, purchased 72,000 shares for $450,000; Geoffrey Harris is a member of the Board purchased 5,000 shares for $31,300. RSJ is a greater than 10% stockholder of the Company and Michal Votruba, who serves as a Director for Life Sciences at the RSJ/Gradus Fund, has served as a member of our Board since July 30, 2015. The subscription agreement between the Company and RSJ provided for the grant to RSJ by the Company of a right of first refusal through June 30, 2018, to license or to have distribution rights in Europe with respect to any of the Company’s technology and/or intellectual property.

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million.

Working Capital, Operating Capital and Capital Expenditure Requirements

As of September 30, 2017, we had approximately $5.45 million in cash and $9.9 million remaining available for stock sales under the terms of the Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital, compared to $0.3 million of cash as of September 30, 2016.

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million.

Our recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s assessment of substantial doubt of going concern is based on current estimates and assumptions regarding our programs and business needs. Actual working capital requirements could differ materially from the above working capital projection. We may explore strategic opportunities including partnerships, licensing and acquisitions of other entities, assets or products.

Our ability to successfully raise sufficient funds through the sale of equity securities, when needed, is subject to many risks and uncertainties and even if we are successful, future equity issuances would result in dilution to our existing stockholders. Our risk factors are described under the heading “Risk Factors” in Part I Item 1A and elsewhere in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other reports we file with the SEC.

The amount of capital we will need to conduct our operations and the time at which we will require such capital may vary significantly depending upon a number of factors, such as:

Sources of Liquidity

Since our inception, substantially all of our operations have been financed from equity and debt financings.

Private Placement of Common Stock

Between November 2016 through March 2017, the Company sold and issued an aggregate of 477,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in a private placement to thirteen accredited investors, for which it received gross cash proceeds to the Company of $2,981,300, of which five are affiliated with the Company.

The Aspire Capital Equity Line of Credit

On December 6, 2016, the Company, entered into a common stock Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 30-month term of the Purchase Agreement. In consideration for entering into the Purchase Agreement, concurrently with the execution of the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Aspire Capital 80,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.

On February 23, 2017, pursuant to a purchase notice issued by the Company to Aspire Capital pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital purchased 20,000 shares of Common Stock, at a per share price of $7.25, resulting in gross cash proceeds of $145,000.

The issuance of shares of common stock that may be issued from time to time to Aspire Capital under the Purchase Agreement are exempt from registration under the Securities Act, pursuant to the exemption for transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

Public Offering

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million. In the offering, the Company sold 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock and accompanying warrants to purchase up to 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Warrants”), at a combined public offering price of $5.25 per share and accompanying Warrant, for a total offering size of $8,793,750. The Warrants were immediately exercisable for one share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $5.25 per share, and will expire five years after the issuance date. In connection with the offering, the Company granted the representative of the underwriters a 45-day option to purchase up to 251,250 additional shares of Common Stock and/or Warrants to cover over-allotments, if any. On August 24, 2017 the underwriters exercised their option and purchased 213,800 common stock warrants for $0.01 per warrant. The warrants were immediately exercisable for one share of common stock at an exercise price of $5.25 per share, subject to adjustments, and will expire five years after the issuance date.

Cash Flows

Net cash used in operating activities was $4,792,100 for the year ended September 30, 2017, compared to $2,978,400 for the same period in 2016. The $1.81 million net increase in cash used for operations was primarily due to: consulting fees increased by approximately $981,385, salaries increased by $306,851, and legal costs of $248,000, the remaining relates to other operating costs.

During the twelve months ended ended September 30, 2017, the Company spent $479,500 in investing activities, including $127,900 in the purchase of computer equipment and expenditures on our Patient Reported Outcomes application and $190,000 investment in Arcadian.

Net Cash provided by financing activities for the year ended September 30, 2017 were $10.40 million. In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising net proceeds of approximately $7.5 million; $2.98 million cash proceeds received from private placements of equity from 13 accredited investors, of which five are affiliated with the Company. During the twelve months ended September 30, 2016, financing activities were $2.95 million, which consisted of $2.95 million in cash proceeds received from private placements pursuant to the Second Amended Note & Warrant Purchase Agreement from nine accredited investors of which seven are affiliated with the Company.

Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments

For details of Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments please the Lease Commitments section of “Note 9. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities” of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have no off-balance sheet arrangements or financing activities with special purpose entities.

ITEM 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

Not applicable

ITEM 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Index to financial statements

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and Stockholders of MYnd Analytics, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of MYnd Analytics, Inc. (the Company) as of September 30, 2017 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of MYnd Analytics, Inc., as of September 30, 2017, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company had recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations that raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans regarding these matters also are described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ Marcum LLP

Marcum LLP

Irvine, California

December 29, 2017

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

MYnd Analytics, Inc.

26522 La Alameda, Suite 290

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of MYnd Analytics, Inc. (the “Company”)(Formerly CNS Response, Inc.) and their subsidiaries as of September 30, 2016, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company was not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit include consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. Our audit include examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audit also include assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of September 30, 2016 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1, the Company has recurring losses from operations and a net capital deficiency. These conditions, among others, raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans concerning these matters are also described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/ Anton & Chia, LLP

Newport Beach, California

December 22, 2016

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 and 2016 

See Accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED

SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

See Accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT) FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016 

See Accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED

SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

See Accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

MYND ANALYTICS, INC.

NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 

Special Note Regarding Reverse Stock-split

UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL STOCK-BASED AMOUNTS APPEARING IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT (INCLUDING HISTORICAL AMOUNTS) HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE 1-FOR-200 REVERSE STOCK-SPLIT EFFECTED SEPTEMBER 21, 2016.

Organization and Nature of Operations

MYnd Analytics, Inc. (“MYnd,” “CNS,” “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”), formerly known as CNS Response Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on March 20, 1987, under the name Age Research, Inc.  Prior to January 16, 2007, the Company (then called Strativation, Inc.) was a “shell company” with nominal assets and our sole business was to identify, evaluate and investigate various companies to acquire or with which to merge.  On January 16, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with CNS Response, Inc., a California corporation formed on January 11, 2000 (“CNS California”), and CNS Merger Corporation, a California corporation and the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary (“MergerCo”) pursuant to which the Company agreed to acquire CNS California in a merger transaction wherein MergerCo would merge with and into CNS California, with CNS California being the surviving corporation (the “Merger”). On March 7, 2007, the Merger closed, CNS California became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and on the same date the corporate name was changed from Strativation, Inc. to CNS Response, Inc. At the annual meeting held on October 28, 2015, shareholders approved a change in our name from CNS Response, Inc. to MYnd Analytics, Inc. On November 2, 2015, the Company filed an amendment to its Articles of Incorporation which, among other things, effected the name change to MYnd Analytics, Inc.

The Company is a predictive analytics company that has developed a decision support tool to help physicians reduce trial and error treatment in mental health and provide more personalized care to patients. The Company provides objective clinical decision support to healthcare providers for the personalized treatment of behavioral disorders, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and other non-psychotic disorders. The Company uses its proprietary neurometric platform, PEER Online, to generate Psychiatric EEG Evaluation Registry (“PEER”) Reports to predict the likelihood of response by an individual to a range of medications prescribed for the treatment of behavioral disorders. The Company continues to be focused on military personnel and their family members who are suffering from depression, PTSD and other disorders through the military, Veterans Administration, and Canadian Forces. Commercial expansion is focused on payer and self-insured markets, provider direct sales to multi-physician and multi-practice provider groups, and patient direct referrals to these groups. The Company continues to expand its database, including younger adults and adolescents.

The Company acquired the Neuro-Therapy Clinic, Inc. (“NTC”) on January 15, 2008, to provide behavioral health care services.  NTC’s operations were discontinued effective September 30, 2012.

Private Placements

Between September 30, 2016, and March 20, 2017, the Company sold and issued an aggregate of 477,000 shares of its Common Stock, at a per share price of $6.25, in private placements to 13 accredited investors, for which it received gross cash proceeds of $2,981,300. Five of the 13 accredited investors were affiliates of the Company which represented 70% of such cash proceeds.

Public Offering

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million. In the offering, the Company sold 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock and accompanying warrants to purchase up to 1,675,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Warrants”), at a combined public offering price of $5.25 per share and accompanying Warrant, for a total offering size of $8,793,750. The Warrants were immediately exercisable for one share of Common Stock at an exercise price of $5.25 per share, and will expire five years after the issuance date. In connection with the offering, the Company granted the representative of the underwriters a 45-day option to purchase up to an 251,250 additional shares of Common Stock and/or Warrants to cover over-allotments, if any. On August 24, 2017 the underwriters exercised their option and purchased 213,800 common stock warrants for $0.01 per warrant. The warrants were immediately exercisable for one share of common stock at an exercise price of $5.25 per share, subject to adjustments, and will expire five years after the issuance date.

Going Concern Uncertainty

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), which contemplate continuation of the Company as a going concern. The Company has a limited operating history and its operations are subject to certain problems, expenses, difficulties, delays, complications, risks and uncertainties frequently encountered in the operation of a business with a limited operating history. These risks include the ability to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, if at all, the failure to develop or supply technology or services to meet the demands of the marketplace, the failure to attract and retain qualified personnel, competition within the industry, government regulation and the general strength of regional and national economies.

The Company’s recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. During the year ended September 30, 2017, the Company incurred a net loss of $7.1 million and used $4.8 million of net cash in operating activities. As of September 30, 2017, the Company’s accumulated deficit was $75.6 million. In connection with these consolidated financial statements, management evaluated whether there were conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raised substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to meet its obligations as they become due for the next twelve months from the date of issuance of these financial statements. Management assessed that there were such conditions and events, including a history of recurring operating losses, and negative cash flows from operating activities.

To date, the Company has financed its cash requirements primarily from debt and equity financings.  The Company will need to raise additional funds immediately to continue its operations and needs to raise substantial additional funds before the Company can increase demand for its PEER Online services. Until it can generate a sufficient amount of revenues to finance its cash requirements, which it may never do, the Company must continue to finance future cash needs primarily through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, borrowings or strategic collaborations. The Company’s liquidity and capital requirements depend on several factors, including the rate of market acceptance of its services, the future profitability of the Company, the rate of growth of the Company’s business and other factors described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  The Company continues to explore additional sources of capital, but there is substantial doubt as to whether any financing arrangement will be available in amounts and on terms acceptable to the Company to permit it to continue operations. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

In July 2017, the Company completed an underwritten public offering of its Common Stock and warrants, raising gross proceeds of approximately $8.79 million. As of December 27, 2017, approximately $9.9 million under the Purchase Agreement remains available for sale to Aspire Capital. See Note 5. Stockholders Equity

There is no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain additional funds on commercially favorable terms or at all. If the Company raises additional funds by issuing additional equity or convertible debt securities, the fully diluted ownership percentages of existing stockholders will be reduced. In addition, any equity or debt securities that the Company would issue may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of the holders of its common stock.

The Aspire Capital Equity Line of Credit

On December 6, 2016, the Company, entered into a common stock Purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (“Aspire Capital”) which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10.0 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 30-month term of the Purchase Agreement.

As of September 30, 2017, approximately $9.9 million under the Purchase Agreement remains available for sale to Aspire Capital. (See Note 5 for additional details on the equity financing).

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and are in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Prior Year Revision

During the year ended September 30, 2017, we revised our consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016 to correct the accounting for certain common stock awards granted in 2015 and 2016 to board members. Previously, certain stock grant compensation was presented as prepaid common stock when the compensation should have been recognized ratably as the stock awards vested. The revision, which we determined is not a material error, had no impact on loss from operations, or cash flows.

The impact on the individual line items of our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2016 from the adjustment was as follows:

Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2016:

Basis of Consolidation

The audited consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company. There were no intercompany transactions to be eliminated on consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenue and expense, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, doubtful accounts, intangible assets, income taxes, valuation of equity instruments, accrued liabilities, contingencies and litigation. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates.

Cash

The Company deposits its cash with major financial institutions and may at times exceed the federally insured limit of $250,000.  At September 30, 2017 cash exceeds the federally insured limit by $5,199,000.  The Company believes that the risk of loss is minimal. To date, the Company has not experienced any losses related to cash deposits with financial institutions. 

Derivative Liabilities

The Company evaluates all of its agreements to determine if such instruments have derivatives or contain features that qualify as embedded derivatives. For derivative financial instruments that are accounted for as liabilities, the derivative instrument is initially recorded at its fair value and is then re-valued at each reporting date, with changes in the fair value reported in the consolidated statements of operations. For stock-based derivative financial instruments, the Company uses a weighted average Black-Scholes option pricing model to value the derivative instruments at inception and on subsequent valuation dates. The classification of derivative instruments, including whether such instruments should be recorded as liabilities or as equity, is evaluated at the end of each reporting period. Derivative instrument liabilities are classified in the balance sheet as current or non-current based on whether or not net-cash settlement of the derivative instrument could be required within 12 months of the balance sheet date.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

ASC 825-10 - Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities defines financial instruments and requires disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments held by the Company. The Company considers the carrying amount of cash, accounts receivable, other receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, to approximate their fair values because of the short period of time between the origination of such instruments and their expected realization.

The Company also analyzes all financial instruments with features of both liabilities and equity under ASC 480-10, ASC 815-10 and ASC 815-40.

The Company adopted ASC 820-10 on January 1, 2008. ASC 820-10 defines fair value, establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosures of fair value measurement and enhances disclosure requirements for fair value measures. The three levels are defined as follows:

The Company used Level 3 inputs for its valuation methodology in determining the fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following assumption inputs:

The detailed roll-forward of derivative liabilities classified as Level 1, 2 or 3, please refer to the table in Note 4, Derivative Liabilities.

The net changes in Derivative Liabilities for transactions which were booked to other income resulted in a net loss on derivative liabilities of $0 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 and a net gain of $34,600 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

The net changes in Extinguishment of Debt for transactions which were booked to other income resulted in a net gain on extinguishment of debt of $0 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 and a net gain of $572,300 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. 

Accounts Receivable

The Company estimates the collectability of customer receivables on an ongoing basis by reviewing past-due invoices and assessing the current creditworthiness of each customer.  Allowances are provided for specific receivables deemed to be at risk for collection which as of September 30, 2017 and 2016 are $1,000 and $1,200 respectively.

Property and Equipment

Property and Equipment, which are recorded at cost, consist of office furniture and equipment, which are depreciated, over their estimated useful lives on a straight-line basis.  The useful lives of these assets is estimated to be between three and ten years.  Depreciation for the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $19,700 and $2,900 respectively.  Accumulated depreciation at September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $84,200 and $64,500, respectively.   

Long-Lived Assets

As required by ASC 350-30 - Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (formerly SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets), the Company reviews the carrying value of its long-lived assets at least annually or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the historical cost-carrying value of an asset may no longer be appropriate. The Company assesses recoverability of the carrying value of the asset by estimating the future net cash flows expected to result from the asset, including eventual disposition. If the future net cash flows are less than the carrying value of the asset, an impairment loss is recorded equal to the difference between the asset’s carrying value and fair value. No impairment loss was recorded for the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016. 

The Company adopted Accounting standards update (“ASU”) 2012-2, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment. The new guidance is intended to reduce the complexity and costs of the annual impairment test for indefinite-lived intangible assets by allowing companies to make a qualitative evaluation about the likelihood of impairment to determine whether it should perform a quantitative impairment test.

Intangible Assets

Costs for software developed for internal use are accounted for through the capitalization of those costs incurred in connection with developing or obtaining internal-use software. Capitalized costs for internal-use software are included in intangible assets in the consolidated balance sheet. Capitalized software development costs are amortized over three years. Costs incurred during the preliminary project along with post-implementation stages of internal use computer software development and costs incurred to maintain existing product offerings are expensed as incurred. The capitalization and ongoing assessment of recoverability of development costs require considerable judgment by management with respect to certain external factors, including, but not limited to, technological and economic feasibility and estimated economic life. At September 30, 2017, the Company had $80,500 in software development costs all of which was capitalized during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. Amortization for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $26,900 and $2,200 respectively. 

On November 23, 2011, the Company acquired intellectual property in the form of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) biomarkers at a cost of $21,200 which was recorded at cost and is being amortized over its estimated useful life of 10 years on a straight-line basis. Amortization for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $2,100 for both periods.  Accumulated depreciation on the intellectual property at was $12,400 and $10,200 at the fiscal years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 respectively.

Accrued Compensation

Accrued compensation consists of accrued vacation pay, accrued bonuses granted by the Board but not paid, and accrued pay due to former staff members. The balance also includes $125,400 accrued for two managers and $108,400 accrued for one officer who voluntarily reduced the cash portion of their salaries to help the Company conserve funds from February through July 2015.

Deferred Revenue

Deferred revenue represents revenue collected but not earned as of September 30, 2017 or 2016. This represents a philanthropic grant for the payment of PEER Reports ordered in a clinical trial for a member of the U.S. Military, a veteran or a family member, the cost of which is not covered by other sources. These deferred revenue grant funds total $45,900 as of September 30, 2017 and 2016.

Revenues

The Company recognizes revenue on services, in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC No. 605, “Revenue Recognition” on delivery of PEER Reports to medical providers.  In all cases, revenue is recognized when we have persuasive evidence of an arrangement, a determinable fee, when collection is considered to be reasonable assured and the services are delivered.

Research and Development Expenses

The Company charges research and development expenses to operations as incurred.

Advertising Expenses

The Company charges all advertising expenses to operations as incurred. For the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 advertising expenses were $152,000 and $148,600 respectively. 

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company has adopted ASC 718-20 and related interpretations which establish the accounting for equity instruments exchanged for employee services. Under ASC 718-20, share-based compensation cost to option grantee, being employees, directors and consultants, and is measured at the grant date based on the calculated fair value of the award. The expense is recognized over the option grantees’ requisite service period, generally the vesting period of the award.

Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method.  Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases.  Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which the temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.  The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.  Valuation allowances are recorded, when necessary, to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized.

As a result of the implementation of certain provisions of ASC 740, Income Taxes, which clarifies the accounting and disclosure for uncertainty in tax positions. ASC 740 seeks to reduce the diversity in practice associated with certain aspects of the recognition and measurement related to accounting for income taxes.  The Company adopted the provisions of ASC 740 and have analyzed filing positions in each of the federal and state jurisdictions where required to file income tax returns, as well as all open tax years in these jurisdictions.  We have identified the U.S. Federal and California as our “major” tax jurisdictions.  Generally, we remain subject to Internal Revenue Service examination of our 2013 through 2016 U.S. federal income tax returns, and remain subject to California Franchise Tax Board examination of our 2012 through 2016 California Franchise Tax Returns.  However, we have certain tax attribute carryforwards which will remain subject to review and adjustment by the relevant tax authorities until the statute of limitations closes with respect to the year in which such attributes are utilized.

We believe that our income tax filing positions and deductions will be sustained on audit and do not anticipate any adjustments that will result in a material change to our financial position.  Therefore, no reserves for uncertain income tax positions have been recorded pursuant to ASC 740.  Our policy for recording interest and penalties associated with income-based tax audits is to record such items as a component of income taxes.

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

ASC 220-10 requires disclosure of all components of comprehensive income (loss) on an annual and interim basis.  Comprehensive income (loss) is defined as the change in equity of a business enterprise during a period from transactions and other events and circumstances from non-owner sources.  The Company’s comprehensive income (loss) is the same as its reported net income (loss) for the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.

Earnings (Loss) per Share

Basic earnings (loss) per share are computed by dividing income (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings (loss) per share takes into account the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue Common Stock were exercised and converted into Common Stock.

Warrant Accounting

The Company classifies warrants to purchase shares of its common stock as equity on its consolidated balance sheets as these warrants are free-standing financial instruments which only require the Company to transfer common stock upon exercise. Each warrant is initially recorded at fair value on date of grant using the Black-Scholes model and net of issuance costs, and is not subsequently re-measured to fair value at each subsequent balance sheet date. The Company allocates the fair value of the warrants based on the relative fair value approach if issued with another equity instrument. The Company did not classify any warrants to purchase shares of its common stock as a liability on its consolidated balance sheets as the warrants did not require the Company to transfer consideration upon exercise.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Apart from the below-mentioned recent accounting pronouncements, there are no new accounting pronouncements that are currently applicable to the Company.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). This ASU requires that a lessee recognize lease assets and lease liabilities for those leases classified as operating leases. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and will be applied at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. This ASU may have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. The impact on the Company’s results of operations is currently being evaluated.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). The amendment outlines a single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. The core principle of the revenue model is that an entity recognizes revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In applying the revenue model to contracts within its scope, an entity identifies the contract(s) with a customer, identifies the performance obligations in the contract, determines the transaction price, allocates the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract and recognizes revenue when the entity satisfies a performance obligation. ASU 2014-09 also includes additional disclosure requirements regarding revenue, cash flows and obligations related to contracts with customers. In addition, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date (issued August 2015); ASU 2016-08 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net) (issued March 2016); ASU 2016-10 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers – Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing (issued April 2016); ASU 2016-12 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers – Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients (issued May 2016); ASU 2016-20 – Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (issued December 2016); and ASU 2017-13 - Revenue Recognition (Topic 605), Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Leases (Topic 840), and Leases (Topic 842) Amendments to SEC Paragraphs Pursuant to the Staff Announcement at the July 20, 2017 EITF Meeting and Rescission of Prior SEC Staff Announcements and Observer Comments (issued September 2017), which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 for all entities by one year and clarified the guidance on certain items such as reporting revenue as a principal versus agent, identifying performance obligations, accounting for intellectual property licenses, assessing collectability, presentation of sales taxes, impairment testing for contract costs, disclosure of performance obligations, and provided additional implementation guidance. Public business entities should apply the guidance in ASU 2014-09 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. Earlier application is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The guidance permits companies to either apply the requirements retrospectively to all prior periods presented, or apply the requirements in the year of adoption, through a cumulative adjustment. As of September 30, 2017, and subject to the potential effects of any new related ASUs issued by the FASB, as well as the Company’s ongoing evaluation of transactions and contracts, the Company is still evaluating the impact of this amendment on its consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. This ASU simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, accounting for forfeitures, and classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. The guidance will be applied prospectively, retrospectively, or by means of a cumulative-effect adjustment to equity as of the beginning of the period in which the guidance is adopted, dependent upon the specific amendment that is adopted within the ASU. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material effect on the consolidated results of operations, cash flows, and financial position.

In December 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230). Restricted Cash: this update clarifies how entities should present restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in the statement of cash flows. The new guidance requires a reconciliation of totals in the statement of cash flows to the related cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash captions in the balance sheet. The new standard is effective for fiscal years and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on our financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2017-04, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The update removes Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. The new standard is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, although early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that the updated standard will have on our financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business. This guidance narrows the definition of a business. This standard provides guidance to assist entities with evaluating when a set of transferred assets and activities is a business. This guidance is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and early adoption is permitted. This guidance must be applied prospectively to transactions occurring within the period of adoption. The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-09, “Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Scope of Modification Accounting,” to provide clarity and reduce both diversity in practice and cost complexity when applying the guidance in Topic 718 to a change to the terms and conditions of a stock-based payment award. ASU 2017-09 also provides guidance about the types of changes to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award that require an entity to apply modification accounting in accordance with Topic 718. For all entities, including emerging growth companies, the standard is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and for interim periods therein. Early adoption is permitted. The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Between September 22, 2014, and July 20, 2015, the Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement (the “Original Note Purchase Agreement”) in connection with a bridge financing, with nine accredited investors, including lead investor RSJ Private Equity investiční fond s proměnným základním kapitálem (“RSJ PE”). Pursuant to the Original Note Purchase Agreement, the Company issued fifteen secured convertible promissory notes (each, a “September 2014 Note”) in the aggregate principal amount of $2.29 million. Of this amount, RSJ PE purchased a September 2014 Note for $750,000. Michal Votruba, a Director for Life Sciences for the RSJ/Gradus Fund, subsequently joined our Board on July 30, 2015. The September 2014 Notes were also purchased by four additional affiliates of the Company (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below).

The Original Note Purchase Agreement provided for the issuance and sale of the September 2014 Notes in the aggregate principal amount of up to $2.5 million, in one or more closings to occur over a six-month period beginning September 22, 2014. The Original Note Purchase Agreement also provided that the Company and the holders of the September 2014 Notes enter into a registration rights agreement covering the registration of the resale of the shares of the Common Stock underlying the September 2014 Notes. 

On April 14, 2015, the Company entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Original Note Purchase Agreement with the majority of the noteholders in principal, dated as of April 14, 2015 (“Amendment No. 1”), pursuant to which: (i) the aggregate principal amount of notes provided for issuance was increased by $0.5 million to a total of $3.0 million, and (ii) the period to raise the $3.0 million was extended to September 30, 2016. The Company subsequently amended and restated the Original Note Purchase Agreement solely to update for the changes made pursuant to Amendment No. 1 (such amended and restated agreement, together with the Original Note Purchase Agreement, the “Note Purchase Agreement”). 

On September 14, 2015, the Company entered into an Omnibus Amendment (the “Omnibus Amendment”) to the Note Purchase Agreement and the notes purchased and sold pursuant thereto, with the majority of the noteholders to fix the Conversion price of all notes at $10.00 per share (as adjusted for stock splits, stock dividends, combinations or the like affecting the Common Stock) (the “Fixed Conversion Price”) (i) automatically, in the event of a qualified financing of not less than $5 million, or (ii) voluntarily, within 15 days prior to the maturity date of the note. The Omnibus Amendment also amended the form of note attached to the Note Purchase Agreement to reflect the Fixed Conversion Price. 

Subsequently thereto, on September 14, 15 and 24, 2015, the Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement, as amended by the Omnibus Amendment, with each of six accredited investors, in connection with a bridge financing. Pursuant to these Note Purchase Agreements, the Company issued an aggregate principal amount of $710,000 of secured convertible promissory notes (collectively, the “September 2015 Notes,” and together with the September 2014 Notes and all other notes purchased and sold pursuant to the Note Purchase Agreement, the “Notes”), which amount also represents the gross proceeds to the Company from the September 2015 Notes. Four of the six September 2015 Notes were purchased by affiliates of the Company, or an entity under such affiliate’s control (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below).

Through December 23, 2015, and prior to further amendments to the Notes, all of the Notes were scheduled to mature on March 21, 2016, (subject to earlier conversion or prepayment), and earned interest at a rate of 5% per annum with interest payable at maturity. The Notes could not be prepaid without the prior written consent of the holder of such Notes. The Notes were secured by a security interest in the Company’s intellectual property, as detailed in a security agreement. Upon a change of control of the Company, the holder of a Note will have the option to have the Note repaid with a premium equal to 50% of the outstanding principal. 

On December 23, 2015, the Company entered into a Second Amended and Restated Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement (which further amended and restated the Note Purchase Agreement, as modified by the Omnibus Amendment) (the “Second Amended Note & Warrant Agreement”) with each of 16 accredited investors, pursuant to which (i) the aggregate principal amount of Notes available for issuance was increased from $3.0 million to up to $6.0 million, (ii) the maturity date of the Notes outstanding prior to such amendment was extended from March 21, 2016 to December 31, 2017; (iii) the time during which Notes may be issued was extended and (iv) certain warrants were issued to holders of both previously issued and Notes issued under the Second Amended Note & Warrant Agreement. 

Pursuant to the Second Amended Note & Warrant Agreement, on December 23 and December 28, 2015, the Company issued to the two purchasers thereof, who are both affiliates (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below) of the Company, (i) an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 of secured convertible promissory notes (each, a “December 2015 Note”), which amount also represents the gross proceeds to the Company from the December 2015 Notes, and (ii) a warrant to each holder of December 2015 Notes to purchase the Company’s Common Stock, in an amount equal to 100% of the shares underlying their December 2015 Note (each, a “Note Warrant”). Each Note Warrant was exercisable, in whole or in part, during the period beginning on the date of its issuance, and ending on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2020 and (ii) the date that was forty-five (45) days following the date on which the daily closing price of shares of the Company’s Common Stock quoted on the OTCQB Venture Marketplace (or other bulletin board or exchange on which the Company’s Common Stock is traded or listed) exceeded $50.00 for at least ten (10) consecutive trading days. The Note Warrants were subsequently cancelled. For additional details on cancellation of the Note Warrants, see “—Note Conversion and Warrant Cancellation” below.

Also on December 23, 2015, in consideration for the agreement to extend the maturity date of the Notes, the Company issued to holders of all Notes outstanding prior to the date of the Second Amended Note & Warrant Agreement, warrants to purchase an aggregate of 300,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Extension Warrants”, together with the Note Warrants, the “Warrants”). All Warrants had identical terms. Each such holder was issued an Extension Warrant to purchase Common Stock in an amount equal to 100% of the shares underlying each such holder’s previously outstanding Notes. Extension Warrants were issued to affiliates (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below). All Note Warrants and Extension Warrants were subsequently cancelled upon conversion of the Notes. or additional details on cancellation of the Warrants, see “—Note Conversion and Warrant Cancellation” below.

Between February 23, 2016 and June 30, 2016, the Company issued to seven accredited investor purchasers thereof (i) an aggregate principal amount of $1,100,000 in eight separate Notes and (ii) a warrant to each holder of such Notes to purchase the Company’s Common Stock, in an amount equal to 100% of the shares underlying their respective Note (each, also a “Note Warrant”). A total of 110,000 shares of Common Stock in the aggregate were underlying these Note Warrants. Five of the purchasers were affiliates of the Company (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below). The Note Warrants were subsequently cancelled. For additional details on cancellation of the Note Warrants, see “Note Conversion and Warrant Cancellation” below.

On August 15, 2016, the Company entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended Note and Warrant Agreement with the investors party thereto to extend the time during which the Notes and the Warrants could be issued under the Second Amended Note and Warrant Agreement from August 11, 2016 to September 1, 2016.

On September 19, 2016, the Company entered into a Second Omnibus Amendment (the “Second Omnibus Amendment”), with a majority of over 80% of the noteholders, thereby amending: (i) the Notes, (ii) the Second Amended Note and Warrant Agreement, as amended and (iii) the Warrants. Pursuant to the Second Omnibus Amendment, the Company had the option, exercisable at any time after September 1, 2016, to mandatorily convert all Notes into shares of the Company’s common stock at $5.00 per share (the “Mandatory Conversion”). 

Note Conversion and Warrant Cancellation

On September 19, 2016, pursuant to the Second Omnibus Amendment, the Company exercised the Mandatory Conversion and, on September 21, 2016, (i) converted the entire outstanding principal balance of $6,000,000, plus accrued interest of $317,000 on all of the Notes into 1,263,406 shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price of $5.00 per share and (ii) cancelled all Warrants (refer to the Note Issuance and Conversion Table below).

The below table sets forth details regarding the shares issued to certain related parties upon the Company’s exercise of the Mandatory Conversion:

Note Issuance and Conversion Table: